T* 


1         ??                          PRINCETON,  N.  J.                          ■«' 

! 

Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia, 

Pa.          1 

i 

i 

i 

BV    741     .H78 

Hughes,    John,     1797-1864. 
A   discussion    of    the 
question,    Is    the    Roman 

t, 


^ ,' 


/^»£^j^ 


'ttttts, 


Sf  4^ 


DISCUSSION 

OF    THE    QUESTION, 

IS   THE    ROMAN    CATHOLIC    RELIGION, 

IN   ANY   CK   IK   ALL   ITS  PRINXIPLES  OR  DOCTRINES, 

INIMICAL  TO  CIVIL  OR  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY  1 

AND    OF    THE    QUESTION, 

IS    THE    PRESBYTERIAN    RELIGION, 

IN  ANY   OR  IN  ALL  ITS  PRINCIPLES  OR  DOCTRINES, 

INIMICAL  TO  CIVIL  OR  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY  1 


BY    THE       ^ 

REVEREND    JOHN    HUGHES, 

OF  THK  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH, 

AND  THE 

REVEREND    JOHN    BRECKINRIDGE 

OF    THE    PRESBYTERIAX    CHURCH. 


43hila^clplua: 


CAREY,     LEA.     AND      BLANC  HARD. 

1836. 


HntevetJ  according  to  ^ct  ot  ^OltflfCSS,  in  the  year  1836, 

By  Caret,  Lea,  and  Blaxciiard, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Eastern  District  of  Penn- 
sylvania. 


PREFACE. 

The  following  brief  statement  of  the  origin  of  this  Discus- 
sion, and  of  the  measures  adopted  for  its  publication,  seems 
necessary.  The  question,  "  Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion, 
in  any  or  in  all  its  Principles  or  Doctrines,  inimical  to  Civil 
or  Religious  Liberty?"  was  adopted,  January,  1835,  as  a 
topic  of  debate  in  the  Union  Literary  and  Debating  Listitute. 
The  object  in  view,  was  in  accordance  with  the  general  design 
of  the  Institute — the  improvement  of  its  members.  The  So- 
ciety, consisting  of  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants,  of  vari- 
ous denominations,  whilst  it  disclaimed  all  sectarian  motive, 
entered  on  the  discussion  in  that  bold  spirit  of  inquiry,  con- 
ducted by  candour,  which  characterized  its  debates,  and  with- 
out the  slightest  expectation  that  any  but  subscribing  mem- 
bers would  take  part  in  the  discussion. 

So  interesting  and  exciting,  however,  did  this  question 
prove,  that  after  the  debate  had  been  continued  three  evenings, 
during  which  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Hughes,  M'Calla,  and  Breck- 
inridge, Honorary  Members  of  the  Society,  were  the  princi- 
pal speakers,  arrangements  were  made,  by  a  Committee  of  the 
Society,  for  a  continuance  of  the  discussion,  between  the  Rev. 
Messrs.  Hughes  and  Breckinridge,  for  six  evenings.  It  was 
further  agreed,  that,  at  the  expiration  of  the  six  evenings, 
the  word  "  Presbyterian"  should  be  substituted  for  the  words 
"  Roman  Catholic,"  and  an  equal  portion  of  time  should  be 
devoted  to  the  new  question. 

According  to  the  articles  of  agreement  between  Messrs.  H. 
and  B.  and  the  Society,  a  Reporter  was  to  be  employed  by 
the  Society,  and  a  report  of  the  speeches  furnished.  The  So- 
ciety were  disappointed  as  to  the  services  of  the  Reporter  on 
the  §rst  three  evenings  of  the  debate.  The  concluding 
speeches  were  also  retained  in  the  hands  of  the  Reporter  for 
.some  months  after  its  close.  In  consequence  of  these  diiFicuI- 
tics,  and  others  appertaining  to  the  mode  and  extent  of  correc- 


4  PREFACE. 

lion,  an  arrangement  was  entered  into  by  the  disputants  to  fill 
up  the  deficiency  in  the  Report,  and  to  correct  the  speeches, 
as  each  might  think  proper.  The  time  necessary  to  re-write 
the  Discussion,  added  to  the  previous  delays,  has  protracted 
the  publication  to  a  whole  year  after  the  close  of  the  oral 
debate. 

These  delays,  though  attended  with  some  inconvenience  to 
the  Society,  have,  at  least,  given  the  disputants  an  opportunity 
of  doing  justice  to  themselves,  respectively,  in  giving  their 
own  report  of  their  speeches.  The  only  disagreement  be- 
tween them  now,  is,  as  to  the  amount  of  matter : — the  one 
contending,  that  only  one-third  of  the  number  of  speeches  de- 
livered in  the  oral  discussion  are  produced  in  their  written 
report ; — and  the  other  maintaining,  that  each  of  the  WTitten 
speeches  contains  the  matter  of  three,  as  they  were  spoken. 
It  is  not  for  us  to  decide,  but  to  leave,  as  we  do,  the  gentle- 
men themselves,  and  the  public,  to  form  their  own  opinion  on 
this  point.  This  misunderstanding,  however,  between  the 
disputants,  required  the  action  of  the  Society,  which  was  had 
in  the  annexed  resolutions.  In  accordance  with  instructions 
from  the  Society,  the  Committee  have  disposed  of  the  work 
to  the  present  publishers,  and  we  trust  that  the  importance  of 
the  questions  discussed,  will  cause  it  to  meet  with  an  exten- 
sive circulation. 

The  Letters,  referred  to  in  the  subjoined  resolutions,  are  ap- 
pended, and  will  fully  explain  the  views  of  the  Reverend  gen- 
tlemen as  to  the  publication. 

In  justice  to  the  Society,  it  is  necessary  to  state,  that  to 
have  sanctioned  a  continuance  of  the  debate  for  publication  by 
them,  would  have  so  increased  the  size  of  the  volume,  as  to 
have  prevented  the  Committee  from  carrying  out  their  views 
ns  to  its  immediate  disposal. 

THOMAS  BROWN,  M.  D. 
WILLIAM  DICKSON, 

Commit  tee  on  Puhlicatinn. 
May  201/1,  1836. 


RESOLUTIONS 


OF    THE 


UNION  LITERARY  AND  DEBATING  INSTITUTE, 

Passed  April  Ath,  1S36. 


Whereas,  The  Union  Literary  and  Debating  Institute  has 
become  involved,  beyond  the  extent  of  its  means,  in  conse- 
quence of  providing  a  Reporter  for  the  late  Discussion  be- 
tween the  Rev.  Messrs.  Breckinridge  and  Hughes  :  and 
ivhereas,  the  report  of  the  stenographer,  and  the  manuscripts 
furnished  by  him,  were,  after  this  expense  incurred  by  the 
Institute,  condemned  as  unsatisfactory  and  incorrect,  and  an- 
other mode,  viz.,  rewriting  the  whole,  agreed  upon,  and  a 
satisfactory  arrangement  entered  into  to  that  effect  :  and 
ivhereas,  another  difficulty  has  now  arisen  relative  to  this  af- 
fair, and  the  Institute  can  see  no  prospect  of  an  event  promised 
in  the  beginning,  and  are  weekly  at  more  expense  and  trouble 
on  this  account ;  therefore — 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  of  Publication  are  hereby 
instructed,  forthwith,  to  dispose  of  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Discussion  in  their  hands  for  immediate puhlication,^n^  re- 
port final  action  on  the  next  evening  of  meeting;  and  that  all 
the  letters  which  have  passed  between  the  parties  be  included 
in  the  publication. 

Resolved,  That  both  clergymen  be  permitted  to  continue 
the  work,  under  the  sanction  of  the  Society,  but  at  their  own 
expense. 


DEFINITIONS  AND  CONDITIONS. 


DEFINITIONS. 


I..  Religious  Doctrines. 


Those  tenets  of  faith  and  morals  which  a  denomination 
teaches  as  having  been  revealed  by  Almighty  God. 

II.  Religious  Liberty. 

The  right  of  each  individual  to  worship  God  according  to 
the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  without  injuring  or  in- 
vading the  rights  of  others. 

III.  Civil  Liberty. 

The  absolute  rights  of  an  individual  restrained  only  for  the 
preservation  of  order  in  society. 


CONDITIONS. 

1.  That  when  the  question,  "  Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Re- 
ligion, in  any  or  in  all  its  Principles  or  Doctrines,  opposed  to 
Civil  or  Religious  Liberty?^'  shall  have  been  discussed,  for 
any  number  of  evenings  not  exceeding  six,  the  question  then 
shall  be,  "  Is  the  Presbyterian  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all 
its  Principles  or  Doctrines,  opposed  to  Civil  or  Religious 
Liberty?"  which  shall  be  discussed  for  an  equal  number  of 
evenings. 

2.  That,  in  both  cases,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  affirmative 
to  prove,  that  what  he  calls  a  doctrine,  is  really  such,  before 
he  can  use  it  as  an  argument. 

3.  The  decree  of  a  General  Council,  the  brief  or  bull  of  a 


Pope,  or  the  admitted  doctrines  by  a  Pope,  shall  be  admitted 
as  proof  on  the  one  side;  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America,  shall  be  ad- 
mitted as  proof  on  the  other  side. 

4.  The  discussion  to  take  place  before  the  Union  Literary 
and  Debating  Institute,  with  one  hundred  Catholics  and  one 
hundred  Presbyterians,  to  be  invited  by  the  Reverend  gen- 
tlemen. 

5.  All  questions  of  order  shall  be  decided  by  the  President ; 
ajrd  no  person  whatsoever  to  be  permitted  to  take  part  in  the 
debate,  but'the  Reverend  Messrs.  Hughes  and  Breckinridge. 

b'.  The  President  shall  prevent  any  manifestation  of  appro- 
bation or  disapprobation,  and  enforce  perfect  silence  in  the 
meeting. 

7.  That  a  stenographer  shall  be  engaged  by  the  Institute, 
to  take  an  impartial  report  of  the  proceedings  and  debate,  and 
that  no  unauthorized  report  be  given  by  the  Society. 

JOHN  HUGHES. 
JOHN  BRECKINRIDGE. 


#    PBiHO£TOr 


-THEOI 


».*#..!V 


LETTERS,    ETC 


Philadelphia,  March  Uth,  1836. 

To  THE  President  of  the  Young  Men'^  ? 
Literary  and  Debating  Society.         5 

Sir, 

I  HAVE  had  the  honour,  within  a  short  time,  of  receiving  a  re- 
solution from  the  Society  over  which  you  preside,  requesting  the 
respective  parties,  in  the  discussion  which  they  are  now  preparing 
for  the  press,  to  condense  the  matter,  as  much  as  practicable,  con- 
sistently with  the  end  in  view. 

In  reply  to  this  communication,  I  am  prepared  promptly  to  say, 
that  the  wishes  of  the  Society  are  entirely  in  accordance  with  my 
own;  and  that  it  will  give  me  much  pleasure  to  do  all  in  my 
power,  without  a  sacrifice  of  the  object  in  view,  to  reduce  the 
size,  and  hasten  the  appearance  of  the  intended  work. 

It  is  well  known  to  the  Society,  that  it  was  esteemed  by  me  a 
violation  of  my  rights,  and  a  departure  from  the  original  agree- 
ment among  the  several  parties  concerned,  to  adopt  the  present 
mode  of  preparing  the  debate  for  the  press.  It  pleased  the  So- 
ciety, however,  to  indulge  Mr.  Hughes,  and  I  yielded  my  wishes 
to  his.  There  were  three  methods  of  accomplishing  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Discussion  within  our  reach,  viz. — 1,  the  putting  of 
the  stenographer's  report  to  press:  2,  debating  the  whole  anew: 
3,  writing  it  out  anew,  as  the  disputants  might  choose.  The  first 
and  second  were  declined  by  Mr.  Hughes ;  and  the  third  adopted. 
I  had  preferred  the  first  or  second — but  acquiesced  in  the  third; 
and  by  mutual  agreement  between  Mr.  H.  and  myself,  the  Society 
approving,  we  have  been,  for  some  time,  engaged  in  reducing  the 
debate  to  manuscript  form.  In  proof  of  this,  I  beg  leave  to  refer 
the  Society  to  the  correspondence  in  the  hands  of  your  Secretary, 
and  to  the  testimony  of  the  Publishing  Committee. 

I  have  just  been  informed,  however,  by  one  of  the  members  of 
that  Committee,  that  Mr.  Hughes  declines  the  continuance  of  the 
Controversy,  after  the  completion  of  the  third  part  of  the  nights 

2 


10 

originally  set  apart  for  the  debate.  Upon  what  ground  he  ven- 
tures thus  to  abandon  the  Discussion,  it  is  not  my  business  to  de- 
clare. Surely  it  cannot  be  with  the  approbation  of  the  Society ; 
and  it  must  be  at  the  entire  sacrifice,  if  persisted  in,  of  his  cause, 
his  honour,  and  my  rights.  I  hereby,  therefore,  utterly  protest 
against  giving  such  a  course  the  sanction  of  the  Society,  if,  by 
such  sanction,  it  be  understood  that  it  shall  be  expected,  or  re- 
quired of  me,  noio  to  close  the  Discussion ;  and  I  cast  myself  on 
the  justice  of  your  honourable  body,  claiming  of  them,  very  re- 
spectfully, the  full  protection  of  my  equal  rights.  Nay,  more,  I 
may  appeal  to  the  magnanimity  of  the  young  gentlemen  of  the 
Society,  as  they  must  remember,  that  the  very  plan  which  Mr. 
Hughes  now  seeks  to  defeat,  by  a  premature  close,  was  accepted 
by  me,  in  order  to  oblige  the  Society,  and  to  indulge  Mr, 
Hughes. 

As,  however,  I  am  very  desirous  to  bring  this  vexed  question 
to  an  amicable  termination,  I  offer  to  the  Society,  (for  I  can  no 
longer  permit  myself  to  have  any  direct  intercourse  with  Mr. 
Hughes,)  the  following  propositions  :— 

I.  I  will  agree  to  complete  six  evenings  of  the  debate — three 
on  each  question,  and  then  put  the  work  to  press.  As  the  writ- 
ten  speeches  exceed  those  spoken  in  length,  about  eight  evenings 
of  the  former  might  probably  embrace  the  substance  of  what  was 
spoken  in  twelve  ;  and  six  might,  with  condensation,  present  the 
chief  part  of  the  Discussion. 

In  this  event,  I  propose  to  pursue  the  subject  hereafter  on  my 
own  responsibility. 

n.  I  will  agree  to  publish  eight  nights,  and  for  the  present,  at 
least,  giving  no  additional  matter — to  the  public^^present  the  de- 
bate as  in  SUBSTANCE  complete. 

HI.  If  Mr.  Hughes  declines  both  these  propositions,  I  shall 
stand  prepared  to  furnish  my  part  of  the  entire  debate,  with  the 
confident  expectation  that  the  Society  will  publish  all  that  Mr, 
Hughes  may  have  contributed ;  and,  stating  his  withdrawal,  pub- 
lish the  matter  furnished  by  the  other  party. 

IV.  In  the  event  of  the  Society's  consenting  to  sustain  Mr. 
Hughes,  in  the  very  extraordinary  course  proposed  by  him,  which 
appears  to  me  wholly  impossible,  I  must  seek  another  channel  to 
the  public;  and,  at  the  same  time,  respectfully  ask  of  the  Society 
to  refund  to  me  the  sums  of  $10,  and  of  $150,  advanced  by  me, 
(the  first,  as  a  donation,  the  second,  as  a  loan,  borrowed  by  me 
for  that  end,)  to  pay  the  stenographer.  If  /  had  refused  to  abide 
by  the  stenographer's  report,  then  there  might  be  some  justice  in 
my  contributing  so  largely  to  pay  him,  as  that  refusal,  by  prevent' 
ing  the  publication  of  the  work,  has  dried  up  one  chief  source  of 
your  revenue.  But  so  far  was  this  from  the  fact,  that  my  advance 
to  the  stenographer  was  made  after  I  had  failed  to  bring  his  work 
to  press ;  and  on  the  faith  that  the  present  arrangements  would  be 


11 

enforced  by  the  Society,  so  as  to  complete  the  debate,  and  secure 
its  sale.  Whereas,  Mr.  Hughes,  who  vilified  the  stenographer's 
report,  paid  nothing  toward  defraying  the  expense  of  it ;  and  is 
now  seeking  to  mutilate  the  matter,  and,  as  I  believe,  to  defeat 
the  publication  of  the  manuscript. 

With  much  respect,  I  am,  dear  sir, 

Your  friend  and  servant, 

JOHN  BRECKINRIDGE. 


March  22c?,  1836. 
To  Messrs.  Brown  and  Dickson,  Committee,  &c. 

Gentlemen, 
I  HAVE  now  finished  the  correction  of  my  speeches,  and  my 
part  of  the  Discussion.  The  matter  is  equivalent  to  more  than 
eighteen  hours'  public  speaking,  and  consequently  it  is  time  to 
stop.  If  the  Society  had,  according  to  agreement,  held  a  steno- 
grapher engaged,  and  thus  taken  down  the  arguments,  in  the 
words  of  the  speakers,  much  trouble  and  labour  would  have  been 
saved  to  all  parties.  But  the  first  three  nights  of  the  Discussion 
were  blanks,  as  to  any  report.  Then  came  Mr.  Stansbury,  under 
the  auspices  of  Mr.  Breckinridge,  to  take  notes  of  arguments,  and 
fill  up  the  supposed  thoughts  of  the  speakers  in  language,  as  near 
as  might  be  to  that  which  they  employed.  This  did  not  give  my 
arguments — except  as  Mr.  Stansbury  conceived  them.  Conse- 
quently, the  report  was  imperfect; — the  reporter  was  not  em- 
ployed at  the  expense  of  the  Society,  as  appeared — 1st,  by  the 
fact,  that  Mr.  Breckinridge  proposed  to  compensate  him  by  a 
public  collection;  and  2d,  by  the  fact,  that  he  neglected  the  report, 
until  after  he  had  attended  to  business  in  Pittsburg  and  Cincinnati. 
Hence,  it  follows,  that  the  Society,  having  failed  in  that  part  of 
our  understanding  on  which  their  claim  to  my  speeches  depended, 
could  not  have  any  right  to  expect  them.  But,  least  there  should 
be  the  shadow  of  legitimate  complaint,  I  have,  by  my  own  labour, 
supplied  the  defects  of  their  mismanagement,  and  will  hand  them 
my  part  of  the  Discussion,  authenticated  by  my  signature,  to  be 
published  for  their  benefit ; — provided,  that  not  a  single  page,  in 
the  printed  copy,  shall  be  allowed  more  to  one  side  than  to  the 
other.  If  the  aggregate  numbei  of  pages,  to  be  occupied  by  my 
speeches,  should  exceed  that  required  by  Mr.  Breckinridge's  ma- 
nuscripts, I  shall  curtail.  If  his  should  exceed  mine,  he  must 
curtail.  I  ask  nothing  but  what  is  right,  I  shall  submit  to  nothing 
that  is  wrong.  I  trust,  gentlemen,  that  you,  and  the  independent 
portion  of  the  Society,  will  discover,  in  this  proposal,  that  I  ask 


12 

nothing  but  that  the  scales  of  justice  be  held  even.  I  am  aware, 
that  there  may  be,  in  the  Society,  a  few  little  spirits,  who,  not 
having  strength  to  burst  the  nutshell  of  bigotry  in  which  they  are 
confined,  are  accustomed  to  prefer  what  is  expedient  to  what  is 
only  just.     Now,  I  cling  to  justice. 

If  this  just  proposition  should  be  defeated,  then  I  shall  hold  my- 
self as  having  done  every  thing  honourable  and  fair  to  lay  the 
merits  of  the  Discussion  before  the  public,  and  let  the  Society  en- 
joy the  benefits  arising  from  it ;  but  then,  too,  I  shall  use  my  ma- 
nuscript as  I  tliink  proper.  The  individual,  or  party  defeating, 
or  attempting  to  defeat  the  publication  on  this  basis  of  justice  and 
equality,  must  be  responsible  to  the  Society  for  the  consequences. 
As  to  myself,  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  but  the  public  will  see 
through  the  whole  matter,  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  little 
spirits  in  the  nutshell,  form  a  just  judgment. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be,  gentlemen. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  HUGHES. 


Philadelphia,  March  29th,  1836. 

To  THE  President  of  the  Young  Men's  > 
Literary  and  Debating  Society.        5 

Sir, 

Having  been  informed,  that  the  young  gentlemen  of  the  So- 
ciety have  delayed  the  final  decision  of  the  painful  question  now 
pending,  in  regard  to  the  publication  of  the  debate,  until  this  even- 
ing, I  take  the  liberty  of  making  an  additional  communication 
through  you  to  the  Society, 

As  no  little  time  has  passed  since  the  debate  began,  and  many 
changes  have  taken  place  in  our  arrangements,  a  rapid  retrospect 
of  the  circumstances  may  not  now  be  amiss.  The  following  facts 
will  not  be  disputed,  it  is  supposed,  by  any  member  of  the  So- 
ciety; or  if  disputed,  are  capable  of  ample  proof. 

1.  Mr.  Hughes  refused,  on  the  third  night,  to  proceed  without 
a  reporter — yet  he  afterwards  rejected  the  reporter''s  ivork. 

2.  Mr.  Hughes  selected  the  present  method  of  preparing  the 
debate  for  the  press ;  and  he  pledged  himself  to  complete  it  in  this 
way ;  and  he  proposed  no  limits  or  terms  at  the  commencement 
of  this  plan  of  preparation :  on  the  contrary,  he  found  fault  with 
the  former  Publishing  Committee  for  seeking  to  restrict  him;  and 
a  new  committee  was  appointed  by  the  Society  to  carry  the  new 
plan  into  effect. 

3.  The  Society  did  thus  and  otherwise  sanction  the  present 


13 

plan,  and  agree  to  carry  it  into  effect.  And  it  was  on  the  faith  of 
Mr.  Hughes's  pledge,  and  theirs,  that  I  gave  up  the  stenographer's 
report,  and  adopted  Mr.  Hughes's  plan.  And  it  was  on  the  faith 
of  the  same  united  pledge,  that  the  debate  should  be  completed, 
sold,  and  published,  that  I  advanced  a  considerable  sum  of  money 
to  pay  the  Society's  debt  to  the  reporter. 

4.  Mr.  Hughes  first  set  the  example  of  enlarging  the  form  of 
the  original  debate ;  for  when  the  first  Publishing  Committee  op- 
posed his  additions  to  the  report  of  the  stenographer,  he  said  he 
was  to  be  the  judge  of  how  much  or  how  little  should  be  added. 
Acting  on  this  principle,  we  began,  afterward,  to  rewrite  the 
whole,  each  having  full  liberty.  When,  therefore,  Mr.  Hughes 
complains  of  the  dilation  of  the  Discussion,  he  should  remember 
that  he  is  not  only  the  sharer,  but  author  of  the  practice. 

5.  Though  more  matter  has  been  written  than  was  spoken  on 
the  same  number  of  nights,  yet  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
topics,  presented  in  the  oral  debate,  have,  as  yet,  not  been  touched 
in  the  manuscript;  as,  for  example,  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope; 
the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  priesthood ;  the  order  of  the  Jesuits  ; 
the  monastic  institutions;  the  immoral  tendency  of  the  system  of 
popery;  the  Inquisition;  the  papal  conspiracy  abroad  against 
the  liberties  of  our  country,  are  all  yet  to  be  examined,  and  was 
all  gone  over  in  the  debate.  This,  Mr.  Hughes  well  knows. 
Yet  he  seeks  now  to  stop  short,  and  exclude  all  that  yet  remains. 
Besides  all  this,  there  are  allusions  in  the  discussion  of  the  second 
general  question,  to  the  discussion  of  the  first,  which  first  will 
not  appear,  if  we  arrest  the  debate  here.  How  absurd  will  this 
appear;  and  to  me,  how  palpably  unjust?  Mr.  Hughes,  contrary 
to  the  order  of  the  debate,  contrived  to  alternate,  very  absurdly, 
one  speech  on  one  question,  and  one  speech  on  the  other.  And 
now  we  have  each  question  half  discussed ;  yet  he  insists  on  pub- 
lishing now,  and  publishing  no  morel 

In  view  of  all  these  facts,  I  can  hardly  think  it  possible  for 
your  honourable  body  to  do  such  violence  to  my  rights,  as  now  to 
force  a  close  of  the  Discussion  on  me.  Being,  however,  unfeign- 
edly  anxious  to  bring  every  part  of  the  Discussion,  as  speedily  as 
possible,  before  the  American  people,  I  have  conceded  much  to 
the  wishes  of  others,  as  will  be  seen  in  my  last  letter,  to  which  I 
respectfully  refer  the  Society. 

That  there  may  be  no  room  left  to  complain  of  my  terms,  I 
here  add,  to  the  proposals  of  that  communication,  the  following, 
viz. : — 

As  Mr.  Hughes  refuses  to  go  farther  in  the  debate,  let  it  be 
agreed,  that, /or  this  reason,  we  will  now  publish/o?/r  nights  of 
the  manuscript  debate :  let  me  then  complete  my  argument  on  the 
papal  question,  and  publish  it  under  the  sanction  of  the  Society, 
accompanied  by  an  explicit  avowal  of  the  fact,  that  Mr.  Hughes 
declines  to  pursue  the  Discussion.     T   will  publish  the  second 


14 

part  jit  my  own  risk,  and  ask  no  more  than  what  is  stated  above. 
If  Mr.  Hughes  asks  more,  his  country  must  see  why ;  and  his 
best  friends  must  blush  for  him,  when  he  shall  not  only  abruptly, 
and  after  all  his  pledges,  withdraw  from  the  Controversy,  but  even 
seek  to  silence  me  midway  the  question. 

I  feel  well  assured,  sir,  that  the  honourable  young  gentlemen, 
of  all  names  and  sects,  over  whom  you  preside,  will  esteem  my 
wishes  reasonable ;  and  will  unite  to  sustain  me  in  my  obvious 
rights. 

But  if  not,  then  I  must  appeal  to  the  American  public;  and  re- 
verting to  the  alternative,  the  painful  alternative,  stated  in  my 
former  letter,  I  must  seek  shelter  from  injustice,  before  a  larger 
and  better  tribunal,  who  love  liberty,  who  will  do  justice  ;  and  be- 
fore whom,  if  God  give  me  help,  I  am  resolved  to  spread  out  the 
whole  of  the  debate,  and  the  history,  as  well  as  the  matter  of  it,  if 
my  stipulated  rights  should  now  be  so  seriously  invaded. 

With  full  confidence  in  the  candour  and  justice  of  the  Society, 
I  remain,  dear  sir,  very  respectfully. 

Your  friend  and  fellow-citizen, 

JOHN  BRECKINRIDGE. 

P.S,  I  understand  it  has  been  alleged,  that,  inasmuch  as  I  called 
on  the  audience  to  aid  in  paying  the  fees  of  the  stenographer,  at 
the  close  of  the  debate,  therefore,  he  was  confessedly  my  reporter. 
It  is  well  known,  as  I  then  avowed,  that  the  reason  of  the  call 
was  the  poverty  of  the  Society,  (which  had  no  funds,)  and  the 
pressing  wants  of  the  reporter,  who  expected  to  leave  the  city  the 
next  morning.  Besides,  it  is  fully  known,  that,  for  three  nights, 
the  Committee  had  failed  to  get  a  reporter ;  and  Mr.  Hughes  re- 
fused to  proceed  without  one.  Then,  at  the  request  of  the  Com- 
mittee, I  wrote  for  Mr.  Stansbury — the  faithful  reporter  of  the 
American  Congress  for  some  dozen  years.  And  yet,  after  all, 
Mr.  Hughes  rejects  his  reports.  Then,  when  we  yield  to  his 
wishes,  give  up  the  reporter's  manuscript,  and  begin,  at  his  re- 
quest, to  write  anew,  he  proceeds  but  half  way  through ;  when 
lo,  again,  and  of  a  sudden,  without  consultation,  or  agreement 
with  the  other  parties,  he  resolves  to  stop.  Will  the  Society  sus- 
tain such  a  course  ?  It  was  on  the  faith  of  Mr.  Hughes's  repeated 
pledge,  to  complete  the  debate,  and  on  the  faith  of  the  Society's 
pledge,  to  cause  it  to  be  completed,  and  sold,  and  published,  that 
I  advanced  money  to  pay  the  debt  of  the  Society.  Will  the  So- 
ciety now  permit,  nay,  aid  in  a  continuance  to  defeat  the  publica- 
tion? 

J.  B. 


15 


Philadelphia,  April  5thj  183ty. 
To  Messrs.  Brown  and  Dickson. 

Gentlemen, 

I  AM  sure  you  must  be  weary,  as  I  am,  most  heartily,  of  the 
interminable  contests  which  have  been  going  on  about  the  publi- 
cation of  the  debate.  It  seems  apparent  that  Mr.  Hughes  will 
not,  on  any  terms,  publish  the  entire  debate;  and  my  friends  have 
urgently  solicited  me  to  consent  to  publish  the /owr  nights,  which 
will  be  complete,  on  my  furnishing  my  reply  to  his  sixth  speech 
on  the  Presbyterian  question.  I  hereby,  then,  signify  to  you  my 
consent  to  this  course,  which  I  pray  you  to  make  known  to  the 
Society  this  evening. 

In  thus  waiving  my  rights  so  entirely,  I  hope  you  will  under- 
stand that  it  is  intended  as  a  testimony  of  my  high  respect  for  the 
Society  which  I  am  unwilling  longer  to  embroil,  even  in  doing 
me  justice ;  and  that  it  is  my  purpose  to  go  on,  through  the 
press  on  my  own  responsibility,  to  com>plete  the  Discussion.  For 
their  desire,  and  their  long  continued  efforts  to  issue  the  whole 
debate,  I  owe  them  my  sincere  thanks  ;  and  I  am  consoled  by  the 
thought,  that  the  young  gentlemen  have  had  so  practical  a  proof, 
that  it  is  not  Protestantism,  but  Popery,  which  shuns  the  light. 

The  only  condition  which  I  feel  at  liberty  to  make,  is  that  the 
correspondence  which  relates  to  the  publication  of  the  debate, 
shall  be  published  with  it. 

I  know  not,  after  this,  what  else  Mr.  Hughes  can  require  of  the 
Society,  or  of  me,  than  that  I  should  be  bound  to  write  and  rfc- 
bate  no  more  on  popery,  as  the  condition  of  his  publishing  any 
part  of  the  debate. 

I  am,  gentlemen,  very  respectfully. 

Your  friend  and  fellow-citizen, 

JOHN  BRECKINRIDGE. 


Philadelphia,  April  llM,  1836. 

To  the  President  of  the  Union  Literary  > 
AND  Debating  Society.  J 

Sir, 
In  certain  letters  of  Mr.  Breckinridge,  which  he  wishes  to  have 
prefixed  to  the  publication  of  our  Debate,  there  are  statement* 
which  are  calculated  to  mislead  those  who  are  not  acquainted  with 
the  facts  of  the  case,  and  to  which  I  have  been  indulged  with  the 
privilege  of  replying.     In  his  letter  of  the  14th  ult.  he  complains 


16 

of  the  "  present  mode  of  preparing  the  Debate  lor  the  press."  To 
this  1  reply,  that  owing  to  our  not  having  a  stenographer  the  first 
three  nights  of  the  discussion,  and  owing  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  remainder,  or  at  least  portions  of  it,  continued  in  the  hands  of 
the  stenographer  for  months  after  the  debate  closed,  there  was  no 
other  mode  left  in  which  to  prepare  it.  After  having  attended  the 
General  Assembly,  and  the  trial  of  Dr.  Beecher,  the  reporter 
wrote  to  your  Committee,  on  the  24lh  of  June,  that  "  his  next 
business  would  be  to  resume  the  report,"  &c.  By  whose  fault 
did  this  happen  ?  Mr.  Breckinridge  says,  there  were  "  three 
methods :"  1,  "  putting  the  stenographer's  report  to  press."  This 
is  absurd.  That  report  was  but  three-fourths  of  the  discussion, 
and  not  the  whole.  It  contained  none  of  the  citations  of  authori- 
ties, which  were  numerous.  It  merely  referred  to  them,  and  left 
it  to  the  speakers  to  fill  up.  Would  it  not  have  been  absurd,  then, 
to  put  it  to  press  in  this  condition  ?  His  second  method  was, 
"  debating  the  whole  anew."  This,  indeed,  would  be  a  new 
method  of  preparing  the  debate  for  the  press.  The  third  was  that 
which  has  been  adopted.  He  says  this  was  done  to  "  indulge 
Mr.  Hughes."  The  statement  was  incorrect; — it  was  done  be- 
cause no  other,  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  was  practicable. 
1  called  on  him  through  the  Committee,  and  on  the  Committee 
themselves,  to  point  out  any  other  practicable  method ; — and  when 
they  could  not,  he,  and  they,  and  I,  agreed,  by  mutual  consent, 
to  adopt  the  present  mode.  This  is  the  simple  history  of  the 
whole  matter;  and  shows,  that  so  far,  if  Mr.  Breckinridge  has  any 
reason  to  complain,  it  is  not  of  me,  but  of  the  Society — for  not 
having  a  stenographer  from  the  first,  and  not  obliging  him  to  attend 
to  the  business  for  which  he  was  supposed  to  have  been  engaged, 
consecutively  and  in  season. 

2.  He  complains,  in  the  same  letter,  that  I  discontinued  the  de- 
bate after  the  completion  of  "  the  third  part  of  the  nights  originally 
set  apart  for  the  Discussion.  To  this  I  reply,  that  each  of  the 
written  speeches,  one  with  another,  contains  as  much  matter  as 
three  of  those  that  were  spoken.  Both  parties  spoke  one  hour 
and  a  half  every  evening;  which,  for  the  twelve  evenings,  makes, 
for  each,  eighteen  hours  speaking.  In  each  half  hour  there  must 
have  been  a  waste  of  two  or  three  minutes,  by  interruptions,  look- 
ing for  references,  &c.,  which  would  take  ofi"  more  than  an  hour 
of  the  whole  time,  making  it,  for  each,  less  than  seventeen  hours. 
Now,  let  Mr.  Breckinridge  take  his  twelve  written  speeches,  and 
attempt  to  deliver  them,  with  that  solemnity,  and  those  graces  of 
elocution,  for  which  he  is  so  distinguished,  and  he  will  find  that 
twenty  hours  will  not  be  sufiicient.  Consequently,  the  written 
speeches,  though  fewer  in  number,  contain  more  than  those  that 
were  spoken.  But  who  began  these  long  speeches?  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge himself!  Look  at  the  speech  with  which  he  opened; — 
and  according  to  which  I  was  under  the  necessity  of  regulating 


17 

my  reply.  Here,  therefore,  is  my  reason  for  stopping — at  the 
conckision.  Another  reason  was,  that  the  Society  had  requested 
that  the  matter  should  be  condensed  as  much  as  possible.  A 
third  reason  was,  that  if  the  two  parts,  out  of  three,  which  Mr. 
Breckinridge  says  are  wanting,  were  added,  it  would  swell  the 
work  to  six  or  seven  volumes,  which  would  frighten  any  pub- 
lisher in  the  city.  It  is  on  all  these  grounds  that  I  have  allowed 
Mr.  Breckinridge  to  call  it  only  the  third  part  of  the  Discussion, 
knowing,  that  if  he  says  he  spoke  more  in  the  time  allowed  for 
speaking,  than  what  he  has  written  out,  no  one,  who  reflects  a  mo- 
ment, will  put  any  belief  in  the  assertion. 

In  his  letter  of  the  29th  of  March,  Mr.  Breckinridge  complains 
that,  owing  to  the  pretended  abridgment  of  the  Discussion,  there 
are  a  great  many  subjects  which  he  has  not  had  an  opportunity  to 
introduce.  To  this  I  reply,  that  he  had  the  privilege,  in  common 
with  myself,  of  correcting  the  report  in  any  manner,  and  to  any 
extent  he  might  think  proper.  If,  then,  instead  of  adhering  to 
the  original  substance,  he  thought  it  more  serviceable  to  fill  up 
his  space  with  new  and  apocryphal  matter,  he  must  not  blame 
me  for  the  consequences  of  his  choice.  He  introduced,  for  in- 
stance, the  subject  on  which  the  Rev.  Murtoch  O'Sullivan  has 
been  holding  forth  in  Exeter  Hall,  viz.,  Dens's  Theology.  I 
did  not  blame  him  for  this ;  on  the  contrary,  I  approved  it,  by 
following  his  example  in  other  instances. 

But,  besides,  the  very  topics  which  he  says  he  has  been 
obliged  to  omit,  are  to  be  found  in  his  speeches  in  tedious  repeti- 
tion. For  the  correctness  of  this  statement,  I  refer  to  his  speeches 
in  connexion,  or  rather,  in  contrast  with  his  letter.  He  has  intro- 
duced, into  his  written  speeches,  whole  columns  of  printed  matter 
from  his  own  former  writings,  and  from  the  writings  of  others  ;  and 
this  fact  shows,  that  he  ought  not  to  complain  of  want  of  space. 
He  was  uncontrolled  in  the  choice  of  his  matter  and  argument. 
The  interchange  of  speeches  on  both  questions  at  the  same  time, 
was  merely  to  expedite  the  work  according  to  the  wish  of  the  So- 
ciety. From  all  this,  it  is  evident,  that  the  matter  of  the  correct- 
ed, or  written  speeches,  is  fully  as  much  as  that  of  the  entire  Dis- 
cussion ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  introduction  of  new  topics  was  a 
matter  of  choice,  and  not  of  necessity,  with  Mr.  Breckinridge. 

He  says,  in  his  letter  of  the  29th,  that,  in  reference  to  the 
lengthened  speeches,  I  was  not  only  "  the  sharer,  but  author  of  the 
practice."  This  is  a  mistake.  The  first  speech — the  rule  for 
others,  was  his.  It  is  true,  that  when  the  former  Committee  at- 
ternpted  to  prescribe  the  length  of  my  first  speech  on  the  Presby- 
terian Question,  I  resented  their  interference,  because  I  would 
not  consent  to  be  deprived  of  any  privilege  which  had  been 
allowed  to  Mr.  Breckinridge. 

He  says  that  I  "  refused,  on  the  third  night,  to  go  on  without  a 
reporter — and   yet  I  afterwards  rejected  the   reporter's  work.*' 

3 


18 

The  first  part  of  the  statement  proves  that  I  wished  the  Discus- 
sion to  be  published.  And  the  second  is  not  correct.  I  never  re- 
jected the  stenographer's  work;  but,  as  it  was  avowedly  incom- 
plete, I  claimed  to  correct  it ;  and,  as  no  rule  could  be  pointed  out 
to  obviate  dispute  about  the  correction,  I  suggested  that  he  should 
correct  his  speeches,  and  I  mine,  as  we  pleased. 

He  says  that,  at  the  commencement,  I  "  proposed  no  limits  or 
terms."  This  is  true  ;  but  it  does  not  follow,  that  the  Discussion 
should  become  endless  on  this  account.  The  time  employed  by 
each  speaker  would  determine  the  limits,  and,  by  this  rule,  I  main- 
tain that  the  Discussion,  as  now  presented,  is  larger  than  if  every 
word  uttered  in  debate  had  been  taken  down  and  preserved.  If 
Mr.  Breckinridge  thinks  that  he  has  not  done  justice  to  the  sub- 
ject, he  may  write  as  long  as  he  can  find  ink  and  paper ;  but  I 
must  be  at  liberty  to  follow  him  or  not,  as  I  may  think  proper. 
This  matter  is  quite  simple.  I  allow  him  page  for  page  with  ray- 
self;  and  if  he  require  an  appendix  to  help  him  out,  then, — to 
borrow  a  phrase  from  his  own  letter, — "  his  country  must  see 
why;  and  his  best  friends  must  blush  for  him." 

In  his  letter  of  April  5th,  Mr.  Breckinridge  speaks  of  his  hav- 
ing '*  waived  his  rights,"  &c.  Sir,  he  has  waived  no  rights.  To 
every  thing  that  has  been  done,  he  has  been  a  free,  voluntary 
party.  I  never  dictated  to  him.  I  never  submitted  to  his  dicta- 
tion. In  the  whole  matter  I  never  knew  or  felt  but  one  princi- 
ple, implied  by  the  words  justice,  hoyiour,  impartiality — and, 
above  all,  "  do  unto  others  as  you  would  that  they  should  do  unto 
you."  But  I  knew  my  own  rights,  and  have  had  both  power  and 
fortitude  enough  to  resist  and  repel  their  invasion. 

Mr.  Breckinridge,  in  the  same  letter,  sets  forth,  that  it  is  not 
"  Protestantism  but  popery  that  shuns  the  light."  If,  by  the 
phrase,  "shuns  the  light,"  he  means,  that  I  have  not  wished  to 
see  the  Discussion  published,  nothing  can  be  more  untrue.  I  en- 
tertain, after  all,  too  high  an  opinion  of  Mr.  B.'s  sagacity  and 
judgment,  to  suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  he  seriously  entertains 
any  such  opinion.  AVhat  he  has  said  of  the  Catholic  religion,  has 
been  often,  and  better  said  before.  What  /  have  said  on  the  other 
side,  will  remove  prejudice  from  every  candid  mind,  and,  as  re- 
gards the  genius  of  Presbyterianism,  will  exhibit  the  motives 
which  should  induce  every  lover  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  to 
watch  its  movements,  and  be  prepared  to  resist  its  grasping  spirit 
of  sectarian  domination  over  all  other  creeds.  The  question,  on 
the  other  side,  has  been,  not  of  "  Protestantism,"  but  of  "  Pres- 
hyterianism'''  alone.  Against  the  Episcopalians,  Methodists, 
Baptists,  Friends,  Lutherans,  or  other  denominations  of  Protest- 
ants, I  have  said  nothing. 

In  the  same  letter,  Mr.  Breckinridge  says,  *'  I  know  not,  after 
this,  what  else  Mr.  Hughes  can  require  of  the  Society,  or  of  me, 
than  that  I   should  be  bound  to  write  and  debate  no  more  on 


19 

popery,  as  the  condition  of  his  publishing  any  part  of  the  debate." 
Now,  I  entieat  the  Society  not  to  "  bind"  the  gentleman  under 
any  such  cruel  obligation.  By  it,  his  usefulness  to  himself  and 
the  country  would  be  destroyed.  But  though  I  do  not  wish  to 
bind  him  in  any  sense,  yet  I  cannot  help  expressing  the  opinion, 
that  to  preach  peace  and  good  will  among  men,  would  be  a  holier 
employment  of  his  time.  "  Blessed  are  the  peace-makers,  for 
they  shall  be  called  the  children  of  God." 

3.  He  refers,  in  his  P.S.  of  the  29th  of  March,  to  the  fact  of 
his  having  undertaken  to  remunerate  the  stenographer,  not  from 
the  funds,  or  by  the  credit  of  the  Society,  but  from  the  pockets  of 
the  guests — by  a  collection. 

Now,  let  him  give  any  explanation  he  may  think  proper  of  that 
proceeding:  it  proves  that  the  reporter  had  been  employed  by  Mr. 
Breckinridge,  and  looked  to  him  for  compensation.  And  here  I 
must  refer  to  the  position  lately  assumed  by  the  Society,  claim- 
ing, as  a  matter  of  justice,  an  arbitrary  right  to  indemnify  them- 
selves by  virtue  of  an  agreement,  which  they  never  fulfilled.  If 
they  had  provided  a  stenographer,  and  he  had  taken  down  the  de- 
bate from  beginning  to  end,  in  order,  then,  indeed,  the  report 
should  be  theirs — because  they  would  have  fulfilled  the  conditions 
on  which  alone  their  title,  injustice,  depended.  But  failing  to  do 
this,  they  have  thrown  upon  us  the  labour  of  reporting,  de  novo, 
the  whole  debate.  This  debate  was  theirs,  inasmuch  as  I  am  con- 
cerned, because  I  iyitended  to  give  it  to  them,  on  the  conditions 
of  a  fair  and  impartial  publication.  But  it  was  not  theirs  on  any 
other  title ;  and  it  has  been  with  deep  regret,  that  I  have  observed 
the  Protestant  member  of  their  Committee,  in  obedience  to  the  ad- 
vice of  intrigue,  setting  up  a  pretension  to  detain  my  manuscript, 
forcibly,  unjustly,  illegally.  I  had  placed  it  in  the  hands  of  that 
gentleman  on  deposit,  until  it  should  pass  into  the  hands  of  the 
publisher.  I  treated  him  with  confidence,  by  placing  my  manu- 
script in  his  hands,  when  I  might  have  put  it  in  the  hands  of  his 
Catholic  colleague.  I  have  been  disappointed,  and  I  regret  it.  If 
I  had  ever  violated  my  word  of  honour,  in  my  whole  intercourse 
with  the  Society,  or  its  Committees,  there  might  have  been  some 
pretext  for  this  dishonourable  proceeding  to  which  I  refer.  But  I 
defy  any  member  of  the  Society  to  point  out  a  single  instance  in 
which,  so  far  depended  on  me,  I  did  not  comply  with  my  engage- 
ment, and  fulfil  my  promise.  Have  the  other  parties  done  the 
same?  It  seems  to  have  been  a  favourite  object,  with  Mr.  Breckin- 
ridge, to  make  it  appear  that  I  was  forced  to  publish.  To  refute  this 
gratuitous  and  unworthy  suspicion,  I  refer  to  the  whole  history  of 
my  proceeding.  I  insisted  that  a  stenographer  should  be  in  at- 
tendance. I  took  upon  me  to  supply,  by  my  own  hand,  the  de- 
ficiencies and  corrections  of  his  report.  I  had  the  whole  copied 
at  considerable  expense.     I  had  never  refused  to  publish ;  but,  on 


20 

the  contrary,  desired  it  in  thought,  word,  and  deed.  But  I  never 
should  have  given  it  to  the  Society,  if  the  terms  of  publication  had 
not  been  fair,  equitable,  and  impartial.  And  to  prove  to  the  So- 
ciety that  1  have  given  it,  not  only  willingly,  but  freely,  /  have 
had  a  copyright  secured  according  to  law.  This  precaution 
was  rendered  necessary,  in  order  to  remove  all  ground  for  the  im- 
putation which  was  attempted  to  be  cast  on  my  honour  and  in- 
tegrity. 

Thus,  sir,  whilst  I  acted  honourably  with  the  Society  and  its 
Committees, — refusing,  with  frankness,  to  do  any  thing  that  I  re- 
garded as  unfair, — but  fulfilling,  to  the  letter,  whatever  I  had  once 
promised, — I  never  left  myself  in  their  power.  And  when,  by  an 
attempted  violation  of  my  rights,  a  member  of  your  Committee, 
in  obedience  to  the  voice  of  intrigue,  would  detain  my  property, 
I  qualified  myself  to  laugh  the  pretension  to  scorn,  and  to  teach 
him  that  I  proceed  to  publication,  not  by  the  coercion  of  petty 
artifice,  but  by  the  moral  obligation  of  my  own  word,  freely 
pledged,  and  freely  redeemed. 

I  am  an  American  citizen — not  by  chance, — but  by  choice. 
AVhen  circumstances  seemed  to  make  it  a  duty,  I  threw  myself  in 
the  breach,  to  vindicate  the  principles  of  my  fellow-citizens  of  the 
Catholic  religion  throughout  the  United  States.  I  have  done  so; 
and,  by  carrying  the  war  into  the  camp  of  the  enemy,  I  have 
taught  one  of  the  ablest  representatives  of  that  Presbyterian  com- 
bination, which  is  attempting  to  destroy  the  civil  and  religious 
reputation  of  Catholics,  that  if  any  denomination  of  Christians  are 
to  be  expelled  for  the  crime  of  persecution,  it  would  be  the  lot  of 
Presbyterianism — to  march  first.  In  doing  this,  I  have  submitted 
to  the  sacrifice  of  much  personal  feelings,  much  labour,  incon- 
venience, and  anxiety.  And  the  reason  why  I  retained  my  just 
dominion  over  my  manuscript,  was,  least  if  passed  into  other 
hands,  it  might  never  find  its  way  to  the  public.  If  it  belonged 
to  the  Society,  the  consequence  would  be,  that,  as  their  property, 
they  would  have  a  right  to  burn  it,  if  they  thought  proper.  I 
have  taken  care  that  it  should  have  a  better  destination. 

But,  sir,  I  am  not  only  an  American  citizen,  but  also  a  Roman 
Catholic.  I  was  born  under  the  scourge  of  Protestant  persecu- 
tion, of  which  my  fathers,  in  common  with  their  Catholic  coun- 
trymen, had  been  the  victims  for  ages.  Hence,  I  know  the  value  of 
that  civil  and  religious  liberty  which  our  happy  government  secures 
lo  all;  and  I  regard,  with  feelings  of  abhorrence,  those  who  would 
sacrilegiously  attempt,  direcdy  or  indirectly,  immediately  or  re- 
motely, to  deprive  any  citizen  of  those  inestimable  blessings. 
God  alone  is  the  lord  of  conscience.  As  a  Catholic,  I  trust  I 
should  be  ready  to  renounce  liberty,  and  even  life,  sooner  than 
renounce  one  doctrine  of  the  faith  of  the  Church — for,  without 
faith,  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.     But  what  is  faith  without 


21 

charity  ?  And  is  not  charity  the  love  of  God,  as  God ; — and  the 
love  of  our  neighbours  as  ourselves  ?  Let  other  men  endeavour 
to  serve  God,  and  save  their  souls,  in  whatever  religion  they  be- 
lieve to  be  true — their  rights  are  as  sacred  as  mine. 

Finally,  sir,  in  taking  leave  of  the  Union  Literary  and  Debating 
Institute,  permit  me  to  return  my  thanks  for  the  personal  courte- 
sies, and  honourable  and  impartial  treatment,  which  I  have  expe- 
rienced from  the  majority  of  its  members,  Protestants  as  well  as 
Catholics.  In  my  intercourse  with  them,  I  trust  that,  if  I  have 
manifested  a  reasonable  measure  of  independence,  I  have  never 
been  deficient  in  courtesy  and  respect.  I  have  never,  by  under- 
hand measures,  attempted  to  bias  one  member,  or  control  one 
measure  in  your  proceedings.  As  to  the  under-current  of  petty 
intrigue  and  prejudice-,  by  which  the  best  and  most  impartial  mea- 
sures of  the  Society  have  been  sometimes  turned  aside,  I,  at  this 
moment,  think  of  those  who  have  been  engaged  in  the  direction 
of  its  various  courses,  as  persons  to  be  only  pitied  and  forgotten. 
I  am,  with  great  respect. 

Your  friend  and  fellow-citizen, 

JOHN  HUGHES. 

P.S.  The  following  is  the  letter  of  Mr.  Breckinridge,  to  which 
reference  is  made  more  than  once  in  the  progress  of  the  Discus- 
sion. He  knew  I  disliked  personal  contention  with  any  one,  and 
most  of  all  with  him,  for  reasons  which  I  have  not  concealed.  He 
knew  that  I  had  been  invited,  not  to  dispute,  but  to  deliver  an 
address,  before  the  Society,  on  the  subject  referred  to  in  his  let- 
ter; and  he  had  privately  engaged  Mr.  M'Calla  to  attend.  All 
this  was  before  he  left  Philadelphia.  He  goes  to  New  York,  and 
after  three  or  four  days,  writes  me  the  following  modest,  vera- 
cious, but  to  me,  extraordinary  and  unexpected  letter.  I  give  it 
as  my  apology  and  justification  for  the  pain  which  my  exposures 
of  Presbyterianism  must  inflict  on  the  feelings  of  many  worthy 
persons  of  that  denomination.  J.  H. 


New  York,  January  2ist,  1835. 

To  THE  Rev.  John  Hughes. 
Sir, 
I  HAVE  just  been  informed  that  you  are  expected  to  address  a 
Society  to-morrow  evening,  on  a  question  of  wliich  the  following 
is  the  substance,  viz.:  "  Whether  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion 
is  favourable  to  Civil  and  Religious  Liberty?'' 

I  write  a  few  lines,  in  order  to  say,  that  I  will  meet  you,  on  the 
evening  of  the  29th  instant,  before  the  same  Society,  Providence 


22 

permitting,  on  that  question; — or,  if  that  be  not  agreeable  to  you, 
in  any  other  place  where  this  vital  question  may  be  fully  dis- 
cussed before  our  fellow-citizens. 

As  I  shall  not  be  present,  I  request  that  you  will  yourself  make 
the  necessary  suggestions  to  the  Society  to-morrow  evening,  and 
give  me  as  early  a  reply  as  convenient.  I  can  conceive  of 
only  one  reason  for  your  refusing,  and  I  hope  time  has  overcome 
that. 

I  remain,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  BRECKINRIDGE. 


PART     I 


IS  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  RELIGION,  IN  ANY  OR  IN  ALL 
ITS  PRINCIPLES  OR  DOCTRINES,  OPPOSED  TO  CIVIL  OR 
RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY  1" 


DISCUSSION 


^'  Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  priiv 
ciples  or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religions  liberty  V^ 


AFFIRMATIVE  I.— MR.-  BRECKINRIDGl!. 

Before  I  enter  on  the  discussion  of  this  important  question,  1 
wish  to  say  to  this  society,  that  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  Roman  Catholic 
paper,  published  in  New  York,  called  "  The  New  York  Weekly 
Register  and  Catholic  Diary,  No.  21.,  Vol.  III.,  Feb.  21,  1835" — 
which  purports,  in  a  letter  signed  R.  C»  W.,  to  give  a  true  report  of 
our  preliminary  discussion,  held  in  this  liall  some  evenings  since. — 
This  letter  is  a  tissue  of  uncandid  statements,  and  is  most  scanda- 
lously and  injuriously /«/se.  As  a  committee  of  this  society  has 
publicly  corrected  the  representations  made  in  a  protestant  paper  of 
this  city,  concerning  a  previous  debate  between  the  Rev.  Mr.  M'Calla 
and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes,  so  I  now  demand,  in  the  name  of  truth 
and  equal  rights,  that  a  similar  notice  be  taken  of  this  base  produc- 
tion ! — and  as  the  author  has  avowed  in  the  course  of  his  statement, 
that  he  waited  on  Mr.  Hughes,  and  received  from  him  "  a  copy  of 
the  conditions  on  which  the  debate  is  to  be  conducted''' — so  I  have 
demanded  of  the  Rev.  gentleman  the  name  of  the  author,  as  it  must 
be  known  to  him  ;  and  I  shall  hold  him  resjyonsible  for  the  letter  and 
its  contents  until  he  gives  it  up. 

[The  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  said — I  did  not  come  here  to  listen  to 
newspaper  articles,  but  to  debate  the  question  before  us ;  and  no 
other  business  is  in  order.] 

Mr.  B. — I  lay  this  publication  on  the  table,  and  pronounce  the 
author  guilty  of  base  and  divers  falsehoods,  which  I  will  prove  by 
one  bundled  witnesses  whenever  he  will  venture  to  avow  himself.*— 
Till  then,  I  hold  Mr.  Hughes  responsible. 

In  advocating  the  affirmative  of  this  question  it  is  not  meant  to  be 
asserted,  that  all  the  principles  of  the  Romish  religion  are  opposed 
to  civil  and  religious  liberty — but  that  many,  very  many  of  them  are  ; 
and  that  the  system  of  which  they  make  a  vital  part  is  opposed  both 
to  civil  and  religious  liberty. — Here  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the 
efforts  of  the  gentleman  to  tie  up  the  discussion  by  peculiar  defini- 
tions drawn  from  his  own  views,  are  both  unusual  and  highly  cha- 

5 


34 

racteristic  of  himself  and  the  gentlemen  with  wjiom  he  is  associated. 
A  definition  should  be  found  in  the  terms  of  the  question — and  if 
terms  are  fixed,  defining  the  limits  of  debate,  they  should  be  techni- 
cally accurate,  and  entirely  impartial.  The  definition  offered  by  the 
gentleman  on  a  former  occasion  was  singular  enough,  and  goes  very 
far  to  show  his  whole  system  of  belief  as  to  the  rights  of  rnan.  He 
gravely  proposed  to  you  the  adoption  of  the  following  definition  of 
civil  liberty,  viz.,  "  the  right  of  each  individual  to  advance  the  good 
of  the  people,  by  every  constitutional  and  honest  means.'"  Now, 
sir,  this  is  the  definition  of  a  duty,  and  not  of  a  right.  But  when 
you  compare  this  definition  with  what  the  gentleman  said  in  our 
preliminary  discussion,  you  will  -see  how  the  parts  of  the  system  ex- 
plain each  other.  On  that  occasion  he  contended  that  the  majority 
had  in  all  cases  the  right  to  rule;  and  of  course,  as  in  Spain,  the 
majority  had  a  right  to  compel  the  minority  to  receive  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion  as  the  religion  of  the  state,  and  the  only  religion  to 
be  tolerated.  The  minority  here  must  submit.  What  rights  had 
they?  Why  to  promote  the  ''public  good" — viz.,  to  be  as  ''good 
catholics"  as  possible  ;  to  help  on  the  system  as  much  as  possible 
— their  right  is  to  submit  I 

[Here  Mr.  H.  said, — I  defined  it  to  be  the  right  of  every  indi- 
vidual to  do  all  the  good  he  could,  in  promoting  public  happiness.] 

Mr.  B. — I  repeat  it,  this  is  a  duty.  But  we  are  speaking  o(  rights. 
The  explanation  alters  not  the  case.  If,  as  the  gentleman  said  on 
the  last  evening,  the  majority  has  the  right  to  rule — then  if  the  ma- 
jority did  wrong,  it  followed  that  it  was  right  to  do  wrong.  And 
then,  if  the  day  should  ever  come,  wlien  Roman  Catholics  will  com- 
pose the  majority  in  this  country,  they  may  of  right  establish  their 
religion  by  law.  This  is  the  broad  and  ruinous  principle  of  the  gen- 
tleman ;  and  we  see  what  it  is,  and  where  it  leads.  Hence  his  in- 
differentism  as  to  the  liberty  of  other  lands ; — and  his  views  about 
other  governments.  Now  I  contend  that  there  are  certain  rights 
which  lie  aback  of  all  conventions  among  men.  That,  according  to 
our  ever  memorable  Declaration  of  Independence,  there  are  certain 
inalienable  imprescriptible  rights  derived  from  God,  of  which  a  man 
cannot  deprive  himself,  or  be  deprived— such  as  no  majority  can  de- 
prive him  of,  and  no  possible  state  of  society  weaken  or  destroy. 

I -would  give  the  following  constitutional  definition  of  liberty,  (re- 
ligious, especially  as  that  enters  peculiarly  into  this  debate,)  derived 
from  the  Constitutions  of  Pennsylvania,  (1790)  ;  Kentucky,  (1799)  ; 
Ohio,  (1802) ;  Tennessee,  (1796)  ;  Indiana,  (1816) ;  Illinois,  (1818) ; 
Missouri,  (1820);  almost  in  identical  terms.  This  definition  is  a 
compact  among  the  citizens  of  these  states.  The  Rev.  gentleman  is 
not  a  Pennsylvanian  or  an  American  if  he  rejects  it;  I  will  show  he 
is  not  true  to  his  holiness  if  he  adopt  it.  It  is  this  :  "  ^11  mCr^ 
have  a  natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  worship  Almighty  God, 
according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences  ;  no  man  can  of 
right  be  compelled  to  attend,  erect,  or  support  any  place  of  worship. 


35 

or  to  maintain  any  ministry  against  his  consent;  no  human  au- 
thority can  in  any  case  whatever  control  or  interfere  with  the 
rights  of  conscience ;  and  no  preference  shall  ever  he  given  by  law 
to  any  religious  establishmmts  or  modes  of  worship.^^  This  is  the 
right  of  all  men,  laity  as  well  as  clergy— every  where  ;  at  Rome,  as 
in  North  America — the  indefeasible,  natural  right;  that  is,  a  right 
by  the  law  of  nature,  or  in  better  language,  by  the  gift  of  the  God  of 
nature ;  and  therefore  a  right  coeval  with  the  race  of  man,  and  not 
repealed  but  conlirmed  and  illustrated  by  the  gospel,  to  worship  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience.  This  right  is  inde- 
feasible— that  is,  imprescriptible — not  subject  to  alienation;  it  can- 
not be  repealed,  or  abridged,  or  impaired,  by  power  or  numbers,  nor 
divested  by  personal  renunciation.  It  is  a  right  indelibly  impressed 
on  each  individual  man  by  God  himself;  so  that  he  cannot  tnake 
himself,  or  be  made  less  free  than  God  has  made  him  in  this  respect. 
It  is  an  essential  elernent  of  his  free  agency,  ^nd  indispensable  to  liis 
voluntary  worship,  which  alone  is  worship  in  truth.  It  is  '*  accord- 
ing to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience ^^  not  that  of  the  priest- 
hood ;  and  therefore  each  has  a  right  to  inform  his  conscience,  by 
all  means  in  his  power ;  by  reading  the  Bible,  and,  if  he  sees  fit,  by 
making  it  the  rule  of  his  faith  and  practice.  Hence  the  translation, 
and  printing,  and  free  circulation  of  the  Bible  is  lawful,  is  his  un- 
alienable right;  and  therefore  all  restrmnts  upon  the  press  as  prac- 
tised by  the  general  councils  of  the  Romish  Church,  in  this  and  other 
respects,  is  an  invasion  of  this  natural  and  indefeasible  right.  (1) 

According  to  this  definition,  churches  established  by  law,  by  kings 
or  pontiffs,  and  maintained  by  coercion,  are  an  invasion  of  the  natu- 
ral liberties  of  man ;  and  therefore  the  Romish  hierarchy  was  an 
usurpation  in  the  days  of  Luther,  and  is  so  noiv,  wherever  its  power 
is  felt,  as  in  South  America,  in  Spain,  and  in  the  temporal  dominions 
of  the  Pope.  All  teri-itorial  precincts,  such  as  parishes,  dioceses, 
and  the  assigning  by  the  authority  of  law  of  the  inhabitants  within 
them  to  the  jurisdiction  of  an  ecclesiastic,  and  the  exaction  of  tithes, 
or  other  rateable  stipends  for  ecclesiastical  uses,  upon  pretence  of 
ecclesiastical  or  temporal  power,  is  an  invasion  of  the  rights  of  man; 
^nd  therefore  the  government  of  the  Pope,  within  his  own  dominions, 
and  in  the  dominions  of  those  sovereigns  who  acknowledge  his  pre- 
tensions, is  an  usurpation  ;  and  for  the  same  reason  all  societies  esta- 
blished by  ecclesiastical  authority,  the  object  of  which  is  to  govern 
the  temporal  affairs  by  means  of  the  spiritual,  (the  Jesuits  for 
example),  are  irreconcileably  repugnant  to  free  institutions. 

And  ouv  definition,  (on  which  I  dwelt  more  largely  the  last  even- 
ing,) declares,  that  this  right  belongs  to  all  men.  It  goes  beyond  the 
exigencies  of  a  mere  social  compact.  It  is  uttered  in  the  name  of 
the  human  race.  It  is  an  universal  truth,  every  where,  and  at  all 
times,  true. 

(1)  See  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  Amendments,  Act  1st 


36 

In  its  nature  the  proposition  of  this  article  is  as  liberal  as  it  can  be, 
but  as  a  compact  it  necessarily  excludes  those  who  cannot  ex  animo 
assent  to  it ;  and  hence  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics  cannot  con- 
cur in  it,  not  because  of  the  illiberality  of  the  rule,  but  on  account  of 
the  scruples  of  Roman  Catholics,  who,  as  a  matter  of  conscience, 
ascribe  to  the  Pope  lawful  authority  to  invade  a  portion  of  their  natu- 
ral liberties ;  their  conscience  forbids  them  to  assert  their  own  free- 
dom, or  to  allow  to  protestants  the  measure  of  freedom  which  they 
claim.  Hence  the  South  Americans,  notwithstanding  their  high  no- 
tions of  political  liberty,  in  no  instance  have  reckoned  religious 
liberty  among  their  political  rights.  They  dared  to  throw  off  the 
yoke  of  the  king  of  Spain,  but  not  the  yoke  of  the  Bojuan  Tontiff. 
The  spirit  of  Luther  did  not  pass  in  the  direction  of  Spain :  this 
s)iows  why  Spanish  America  is  papistical  and  not  free.  It  did  pass, 
in  the  direction  of  England ;  hence  the  United  States  are  free.  Had 
a  liUther  never  lived,  the  United  States  might  have  been  as  Spanish 
America.  The  religion,  or  rather  the  religious  principle  of  the 
American  constitutions,  is  traceable  under  God  to  Luther,  as  an  ef- 
fect to  its  instrumental  cause.  This  principle  of  the  American  con- 
stitutions is  protestantism.  The  liberties  and  intelligence,  and  the 
manifold  blessings  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
are  its  effects — which  can  properly  be  appreciated  only  by  contrast 
with  the  condition  of  the  vicious,  ignorant,  superstitious,  and 
priest-ridden  inhabitants  of  South  America,  Spain  and  Italy.  The 
contrast  shows  also  the  natural  tendencies  of  Romanism  upon  the 
civil  and  religious  liberties  of  men. 

There  is  a  common  sophism  on  this  question,  which  consists  in 
confounding  the  term  voluntary  with  the  term  free.  In  this  spe- 
cious way  a  voluntary  slave,  (which  is  by  no  means  a  solecism,) 
may  be  proved  to  be  a  free  man.  A  kindred  sophism  consists  in 
confounding  the  freedom  of  government,  or  constitutional  liberty, 
with  individual  or  personal  freedom.  If  a  man  were  to  be  robbed 
of  his  property  he  would  be  esteemed  poor;  the  manner  by  which 
he  is  divested  of  his  property  does  not  alter  the  fact  or  the  true 
character  of  his  condition,  ttp^n  the  same  reason,  a  man  who 
renounces  into  the  hands  of  another  his  natural  liberties  can  with 
no  more  propriety  be  called  a  free  man,  than  he  could  be  if  he  were 
deprived  of  them  by  the  hand  of  arbitrary  and  irresistible  power. 
In  truth  a  voluntary  slave  is  more  a  slave  than  one  who  resists  his 
oppressor,  or  who  desires  to  throw  off  his  chains.  A  voluntary 
slave  is  the  lowest  and  most  ignoble  of  all  slaves.  Suppose  the 
people  of  Pennsylvania  were,  with  one  consent,  to  choose  a  governor 
or  prince  as  their  ruler,  who  should  have  absolute  power  to  make 
and  execute  such  laws  as  he  saw  proper.  Could  the  government 
with  propriety  be  caWed  free?  Yet  the  case  supposes  the  people 
voluntary  in  making  the  change,  and  not  constrained  in  submitting 
to  it.  They  would  voluntarily  part  with  their  natural  liberties,  but 
they  would  no  more  continue  to  be  free,  than  a  man  who  should 


37 

voluntarily  part  with  all  his  property  would  continue  to  be  rich. 
Nor  could  the  government  with  any  propriety  be  called  free,  rela- 
tively to  the  governments  of  the  other  states,  which  are  founded 
upon  the  principles  of  natural  right. 

For  the  same  reason  those  who  surrender  voluntarily  the  natural 
rights  of  conscience,  the  rights  of  free  worship,  to  a  spiritual 
prince  or  pontiff,  do  not  continue  to  be  free  in  these  respects — nay 
they  cannot  be  said  to  be  free  in  any  respect.  A  man  who  is 
chained  by  one  limb  only  is  restrained  of  his  natural  freedom,  as 
truly  and  almost  as  effectually,  as  to  all  useful  purposes,  as  if  he 
were  chained  by  every  limb.  It  is  like  a  semi-paralysis  of  the 
body. 

Now  in  view  of  the  above  definition  and  necessary  inferences, 
Ivhich  no  true  American  can  deny,  it  is  apparent  in  how  many 
respects  the  "  doctrines"  of  the  Church  of  Rome  are  directly 
opposed  to  human  and  especially  to  religious  liberty. 

Wiih  these  great  principles  in  view,  I  will  proceed  to  specify 
more  in  detail  the  joroo/"  against  the  Roman  Catholic  religion. 

What  I  said  more  fully  at  the  preliminary  meeting — and  what  the 
gentleman  then  scarcely  pretended  a  reply  to — I  now  repeat — that 
as  soon  as  a  child  is  born  into  the  world,  the  ^^  indelible  brand 
of  slavery, ^^  as  it  has  been  justly  called,  is  stamped  upon  him,  by  the 
Church  of  Rome,  in  what  she  calls  baptism.  The  decrees  and 
canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  this  subject,  eternize,  in  their 
self-styled — and  unchangeable  infallibility — the  tyranny  of  Roman- 
ism. Thus,  for  example,  the  fourteenth  canon  on  baptism  is  as 
follows — viz :  "  Whoever  shall  affirm  that  when  these  baptized 
children  grow  up  they  are  to  be  asked  whether  they  will  confirm 
the  promises  made  by  their  godfathers  in  their  name,  at  their  bap- 
tism ;  and  that  if  they  say  they  will  not,  they  are  to  be  left  to  their 
own  choice,  and  not  to  be  compelled  in  the  mean  time  to  lead  a 
Christian  life,  by  any  other  punishment  than  exclusion  from  the 
eucharist  and  the  other  sacraments,  until  they  repent :"  let  him  be 
accursed." 

Here  it  is  evident  that  the  doctrine  of  force  is  distinctly  taught; 
and  not  mora/ force,  hui  physical;  for  moral  means,  or  ecclesiastical 
discipline,  such  as  *'  exclusion  from  the  eucharist  and  other  sacra- 
ments^' — is  expressly  stated  in  the  above  canon  as  not  the  only 
punishment  meant.  The  Latin  word  also  used  in  the  original  is 
eoGENDos,  which  every  scholar  knows,  especially  in  such  a  con- 
nexion, means  the  application  of  coercion,  superior  power,  force. 

Resides ;  the  practice  of  the  church,  in  every  country,  where  it 
has  the  power,  and  even  at  this  day,  is  in  accordance  with  this 
interpretation.  Now  here  we  say  is  a  doctrine  leading  to  a  practice 
in  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  is  directly  and  avowedly  destructive 
of  religious  liberty. 

*^gain;  I  referred  on  the  last  evening  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  on  auricular  confession,  as  an  invasion  of  personal 


58 

liberty,  and  in  the  highest  sense  dangerous  to  the  freedom  and 
safety  of  states.  In  the  fourteenth  session  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
under  the  decrees  on  penance,  it  is  thus  written :  *'  The  universal 
church  has  always  understood  that  a  full  confession  of  sins  was 
instituted  by  the  Lord,  as  a  part  of  the  sacrament  of  penance." — 
♦*  It  is  plain  that  the  priests  cannot  sustain  the  office  of  judge,  if  the 
cause  be  unknown  to  them;  nor  inflict  equitable  punishments,  if 
sins  are  only  confessed  in  general  ;  and  not  minutely  and  indivi- 
dually described.'' — "  Those  who  do  otherwise,  and  knowingly 
conceal  any  sins,  present  nothing  to  the  divine  goodness  to  be 
forgiven  by  the  priest."" — Again,  the  sixth  canon  is  as  follows: 
**  Whoever  shall  deny  that  sacramental  confession  was  instituted  by 
divine  command,  or  that  it  is  necessary  to  salvation ;  or  shall  affirm 
that  the  practice  of  secretly  confessing  to  the  priest  alone,  as  it  has 
ever  been  observed  from  the  beginning  by  the  Catholic  Church,  and 
is  still  observed,  is  foreign  to  the  institution  and  command  of  Christ, 
and  is  a  human  invention:  let  him  be  accursed." 

Now  we  say  this  is  usurping  the  peculiar  prerogative  of  God. 
It  is  blasphemously  setting  up  di  priest  as  judge  in  God's  stead,  and 
forcing  the  poor  subject,  as  the  condition  of  pardon,  to  unveil  the 
secrets  of  the  heai't  to  a  priest,  when  this  is  due  to  God  alone ! 
Never,  perhaps,  was  such  a  device  found  out  to  rule  with  a  rod  of 
iron  a  subject  world.  No  secrets  from  the  priests,  or  else  no  salva- 
vation!  and  that  too  with  the  priest  alone!  ..Hence  it  is  called 
auricular.  Think  of  your  daughter,  your  sister,  your  wife,  thus, 
secretly  opening  to  a  priest  alone,  all  her  feelings — on  all  subjects — 
as  the  medium  of  pardon.  Think  of  the  confessor  of  a  prince! 
think  of  that  great  army  of  priests  located  all  over  the  world,  prying 
into  all  the  secret  thoughts,  feelings,  acts,  intentions,  desires,  of  all 
their  subjects.  Think  of  the  power  it  gives.  Was  there  ever  such 
a  scheme  of  espionage  ;  such  a  system  of  omnipresent  police !  Can 
there  be  liberty  under  such  a  regime?  It  is  easy  to  be  seen  how, 
on  this  plan,  a  priest  can  restore  stolen  goods ;  and  why  we  poor 
protestants  neither  know  nor  can  do  any  thing  like  it  ?  They  know 
all  the  secrets,  of  all  the  villains,  connected  with  their  church ;  and 
can,  by  a  nod,  compel  restitution,  or  hand  them  over  to  hopeless 
perdition !  It  may  well  be  conceived  also,  what  must  be  the  habitual 
state  of  every  priest's  mind,  being  made,  as  it  is,  the  receptacle  of 
all  the  sins  of  all  his  people — the  common-sewer  of  iniquity!  Now, 
under  the  operation  of  such  a  system,  must  not  a  pure  priest  or  a 
free  mind  be  almost  a  miracle !  Is  not  the  destruction  of  all  liberty 
necessarily  involved  in  the  application  of  such  a  system  ?  We  com- 
mend this  subject  to  the  audience,  and  call  for  a  reply  from  our 
Reverend  friend. 

Without  dwelling  at  present  upon  the  other  sacraments  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  as  constructed  and  administered  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  human  liberty,  /  draw  my  next  argument  from  her  tyranni- 
cal interference  with  the  freedom  of  the  press — of  readitig,  fyc. 


39 

The  freedom  of  the  press  has  justly  been  called  the  palladium  of  our 
independence.  It  is  the  glory,  the  pledge,  and,  under  God,  one  of 
the  chief  securities  of  our  liberties.  Unlimited  freedom  of  printing 
and  reading  has  never  been  permitted  by  the  Roman  hierarchy, 
where  she  had  power  to  prevent  it.  Speaking  of  printing,  one  has 
racily  said,  *'  Hereby  tongues  are  known,  knowledge  groweth,  judg- 
ment increaseth,  books  are  dispersed,  the  Scripture  is  seen,  the 
doctors  be  read,  stories  be  opened,  times  compared,  truth  discerned, 
falsehood  detected,  and  with  finger  pointed,  and  all  through  the  bene- 
fit of  printing.  Wherefore  I  suppose,  that  either  the  Pope  must 
abolish  printing,  or  he  must  seek  a  new  world  to  reign  over ;  for 
else,  as  this  world  standeth,  printing  doubtless  will  abolish  him,''* 

The  great  Council  of  Lateran,  held  at  Rome,  A.  D.  1515,  under 
Leo  X.  session  10th,  (1)  thus  enacted :  "  We  ordain  and  decree  that 
no  person  shall  presiime  to  pinnt,  or  cause  to  be  printed  any 
book  or  other  writing  whatsoever,  either  in  our  city,  (Rome,) 
or  in  any  other  cities  and  dioceses,  unless  it  shall  first  have  been 
carefully  examined,  if  in  this  city  by  our  vicar,  and  the  master 
of  the  holy  palace,  or  if  in  other  cities  and  dioceses  by  the 
bishops  or  his  deputy,  with  the  inquisitor  of  heretical  pravity 
for  the  diocese,  in  which  the  said  impressiorj  is  about  to  be  made ; 
and  unless  also  it  shall  have  received  under  their  own  hand,  their 
written  approval. given  without  price,  and  without  delay.  Whoso- 
ever shall  presume  to  do  otherwise,  besides  the  loss  of  the  books, 
which  shall  be  publicly  burned,  shall  be  bound  by  the  sentence  of 
excommunication."  Caranza,  from  whom  the  above  is  extracted, 
more  wisely  than  honestly  omits  several  parts  of  this  decree,  such 
as,  '*  That  the  transgressing  printer  was  to  pay  200  ducats,  to  help 
in  building  St.  Peter's  Cathedral  at  Rome ;"  "be  suspended  for  a 
year  from  his  trade,"  &c. 

By  authority  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  this  decretal,  and  all  other* 
of  a  similar  kind,  are  thus  confirmed,  viz.  Rule  I.  '*  All  books  con- 
demned by  the  supreme  pontiffs  or  general  councils,  before  the  year 
1515,  and  not  comprised  in  the  present  index,  are  nevertheless  to  be 
considered  as  condemned."  The  creed  also,  as  adopted  by  every 
Roman  Catholic,  requires  all  "  to  receive  undoubtedly  all  things 
delivered,  defined  and  declared  by  the  "sacred  canons  and  general 
councils,  and  particularly  by  the  holy  Council  of  Trent."  These 
decretals,  &;c.  being  thus  confirmed  by  the  last  council,  stand  to 
this  day,  and  bind  every  Roman  Catholic  on  earth.  That  same  lust 
council,  thus  sealed  with  its  last  act  the  destruction  of  all  liberty  of 
printing,  reading,  and  of  thought  itself,  among  all  its  subjects,  viz. 
•'  Concerning  the  index  of  books,  the  most  holy  council  in  its 
second  session  under  our  most  holy  lord  Pius  IV.  entrusted  it  to 
certain  select  fathers,  to  consider  what  was  needful  to  be  done  in 
the  case  of  divers  censures,  and  books  either  suspected  or  pernicious ^ 
and  then  report  to  the  holy  council;   and 'having  heard  now,  that 

(I)  See  Caranza,  p.  670. 


40 

their  labours  are  completed,  but  yet  seeing  that  on  account^  of  the 
variety  and  number  of  said  books,  the  holy  council  cannot  mmutely, 
and  with  convenience,  judge  in  the  case;  therefore  it  is  decreed,  that 
whatever  may  be  determined  by  them,  shall  be  laid  before  the  most 
holy  Pope  of  Rome,  so  that  it  may  be  completed,  and  published 
according  to  his  judgment  and  authority."  Here  then  is  the  decree 
of  the  council  sanctioning  the  acts  of  the  committee  and  Pope.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  "  committee  on  the  index"  proceeded  to  draw  up  a 
list  of  ''prohibited  books,''  which  makes  a  large  volume  ;  [here  Mr. 
B.  exhibited  the  book,  adding,  that  there  was  another  copy  in  the 
Philadelphia  Library,]  and  they  prefixed  many  "  rules"  to  it,  which 
received  in  full  the  sanction  of  the  Pope  ;  they  were  published  by 
his  authority,  and  "have  since  been  received  by  the  church,  and  re- 
peatedly sanctioned  by  subsequent  Popes.  The  work,  therefore,  is 
binding  on  every  Roman  Catholic  on  earth ;  to  reject  it  is  rebellion; 
to  deny  its  existence  reckless  falsehood.  To  show  the  oppressive 
character  of  this  system,  we  give  some  of  its  I'ules,  (they  are  ten  in 
number.)  The  second  rule  is :  "  The  books  of  heresiarchs,  whether 
of  those  who  broached  or  disseminated  their  heresies  prior  to  the 
year  above  mentioned,  or  of  those  who  have  been,  or  are,  the  heads 
or  leaders  of  heretics,  as  Luther,  Zuingle,  Calvin,  Bakhasar,  Paci- 
mbntanus,  Swenchfeld,  and  other  similar  ones,  are  altogether  for" 
bidden,  whatever  may  be  their  names,  titles  or  subjects." 

The  fourth  is  as  follows  :  *'  Inasmuch  as  it  is  manifest  from  ex- 
perience, that  if  the  Holy  Bible,  translated  into  the  vulgar  tongue, 
be  indiscriminately  allowed  to  every  one,  the  temerity  of  men.  will 
cause  -more  evil  than  good  to  arise  from  it,  it  is,  on  this  point  re- 
ferred to  the  judgment  of  the  bishops  or  inquisitors,  who  may,  by 
the  advice  of  the  priest  or  confessor,  permit  the  reading  of  the  Bible 
translated  into  the  vulgar  tongue  by  catholic  authors,  to  those 
persons  whose  faith  and  piety  they  apprehend  will  be  augmented 
and  not  injured  by  it;  and  this  permission  they  must  have  in  writing: 
but  if  any  one  shall  have  the  presumption  to  read  or  possess  it  with- 
out such  written  permission,  he  shall  not  receive  absolution  until  he 
have  first  delivered  up  such  Bible  to  the  ordinary.  Booksellers, 
however,  who  shall  sell,  or  otherwise  dispose  of  Bibles  in  the  vulgar 
tongue,  to  any  person  not  having  such  permission,  shall  forfeit  the 
value  of  the  books,  to  be  applied  by  the  bishop  to  some  pious  use, 
and  be  subjected  by  the  bishop  to  such  other  penalties  as  the  bishop 
shall  judge  proper  according  to  the  quality  of  the  oflence.  But  re- 
gulars shall  neither  read  nor  purchase  such  Bibles  without  a  special 
license  from  their  superiors." 

The  fifth  rule  allows  books  of  heretics  containing  but  little  of  thsir 
own  to  be  us'ed  by  catholics,  after  having  been  corrected  by  their 
divines.  By  the  sixth  rule,  '' books  of  controversy,  betwixt  the 
catholics  and  heretics  of  the  present  time,  ivritten  in  the  vulgar 
tongue,  are  not  to  be  indiscriminately  allowed,  but  are  to  be  subject 
to  the  same  regulations  as  Bibles  in  the  vulgar  tongue.'' 

The  tenth  rule  is  as  follows  :  *'  In  the  printing  of  books  or  other 


41 

writings,  the  rules  shall  be  observed  which  were  ordained  in  the 
tenth  session  of  the  Council  of  Lateran,  under  Leo  X.  Therefore, 
if  any  book  is  to  be  printed  in  the  city  of  Rome,  it  shall  first  be  ex- 
amined by  the  Pope's  vicar  and  the  master  of*  the  saci'ed  palace,  or 
other  persons  chosen  by  our  most  holy  father  for  that  purpose.  In 
other  places  the  examination  of  any  book  or  manuscript  intended  to 
be  printed,  shall  be  referred  to  the  bishop,  or  some  skilful  person 
whom  he  shall  nominate,  and  the  inquisitors  of  heretical pravity  of 
the  city  or  diocese  in  which  the  impression  is  executed.'''' 

*'  Moreover,  in  every  city  and  diocese,  the  house  or  places  where 
the  art  of  printing  is  exercised,  and  also  the  shops  of  booksellers, 
shall  be  frequently  visited  by  persons  deputed  for  that  purpose  by 
the  bishop  or  his  vicar,  conjointly  with  the  inquisitor  of  heretical 
pravity,  so  that  nothing  that  is  prohibited,  may  be  printed,  kept, 
or  sold.'"  ''  If  any  person  shall  import  foreign  books  into  any  city, 
they  shall  be  obliged  to  announce  them  to  the  deputies."  "  Heirs 
and  testamentary  executors  shall  make  no  use  of  the  books  of  the 
deceased,  nor  in  any  way  transfer  them  to  others,  until  they  have 
presented  a  catalogue  of  them  to  the  deputies,  and  obtained  their 
license,  under  pain  of  confiscation  of  the  books." 

"  Finally,  it  is  enjoined  on  all  the  faithful,  that  no  one  presume  to 
keep  or  read  any  books  contrary  to  these  rules,  or  prohibited  by  this 
index.  But  if  any  one  keep  or  read  any  books  composed  by  here- 
tics, or  the  writings  of  any  authors  suspected  of  heresy  or  false 
doctrine,  he  shall  ins'tantly  incur  the  sentence  of  excommunication, 
and  those  who  re3.d  or  keep  works  interdicted  on  another  account, 
besides  the  mortal  sin  committed,  shall  be  severely  punished  at  the 
will  of  the  bishops." 

Now  if  this  be  not  restraint  of  human  liberty,  I  know  not  what  re- 
straint is.  Here  the  conscience,  the  intellect,  and  the  means  of  know- 
ledge— printing,  selling,  circulating,  holding,  importing,  reading 
books,  are,  by  the  decree  of  an  infallible  council,  and  their  authorized 
rules,  trampled  in  the  dust.  But,  in  fine,  look  once  more  to  the  decrees 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  the  editions  of  God's  Holy  Word  itself.  In 
Jhe  fourth  session  of  that  conventicle,  is  this  open  decree  ;  "  Moreover 
the  same  most  holy  council,  considering  that  no  small  advantage  will 
accrue  to  the  church  of  God  if,  o^  all  the  Latin  editions  of  the  sacred 
book  which  are  in  circulation,  sonie  one  shall  be  distinguished  as 
that  which  ought  to  be  regarded  as  authentic, — doth  ordain  and  de- 
clare, that  the  same  old  and  vulgate  edition,  which  has  been  approved 
by  its  use  in  the  church  for  so  many  ages,  shall  be  held  as  authentic, 
in  all  public  lectures,  disputations,  sermons,  and  expositions  ;  and 
that  no  one  shall  dare  or  presume  to  reject  it  under  any  pretence 
ivhat soever.^'  In  order  to  restrain  petulant  minds>  the  Council  fur- 
ther decrees,  "  that  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals,  and  whatever 
relates  to  the  maintenance  of  Christian  doctrine,  no  one,  confiding 
in  his  own  judgment,  shall  dare  to  \vtest  the  sacred  Scriptures  to 
his  own  sense  of  them,  contrary  to  that  which  hath  been  held  and 

6 


42 

still  is  held  by  Holy  Mother  Church,. to Jiose  ri^ht  it  is  to  judge  oj 
the  true  meaning  and  interpretation  of  the  sacred  JVord;  or  con- 
trary to  the  iinanimous  consent  of  the  fathers;  even  though  such 
interpretations  should  never  be  published.  If  any  disobey,  let  him 
be  denounced  by  the  ordinaries,  and  punished  according  to  law. 
Being  desirous  also,  as  is  reasonable,  of  setting  bounds  to  the  printers, 
who,  with  unlimited  boldness,  supposing  themselves  at  liberty  to  do 
as  they  please,  print  editions  of  the  Holy  Scripture  with  notes  and 
expositions  taken  indifferently  from  any  writer,  without  the  permis- 
sion of  their  ecclesiastical  superiors,  and  that  at  a  concealed  or 
falsely  designated  press,  and,  which  is  worse,  without  the  name  of 
the  author,: — and  also  rashly  expose  books  of  this  nature  to  sale  in 
other  countries  ;  the  holy  council  decrees  and  ordains,  that  for  the 
future,  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  especially  the  old  vulgate  edition, 
shall  be  printed  in  the  most  correct  manner  possible;  and  no  one 
shall  be  permitted  to  print,  or  cause  to  be  printed,  any  books  relating 
to  religion,  without  the  name  of  the  author ;  neither  shall  any  one 
hereafter  sell  such  books,  or  even  retain  them  in  his  possession,  unless 
they  have  been  first  examined  and  approved  by  the  ordinary,  under 
penalty  of  anathema,  and  the  pecuyiiary  fine  adjudged  by  the  last 
Council  of  Later an.^^ — Here  the  vulgate,  or  old  Latin  version,  known 
by  every  scholar  to  abound  in  errors,  including  also  the  fables  and 
falsehoods  of  the  Apocrypha,  and  to  the  contempt  of  the  original 
languages  of  the  Bible,  is  forcibly  made  the  exclusive  standard ; 
printers  of  all  sorts,  in  all  places,  are  forbidden  to  print  the  Bible, 
with  notes — as  in  the  former  extract  they  were  forbidden  to  print  it 
in  any  way,  Avithout  permission,  under  heavy  pains  and  penalties, 
spiritual  and  temporal ;  and  all  perspns  are  forbidden  to  think  for 
themselves.  Putting  all  these  decrees  together,  there  never  was 
perhaps  such  a  system  of  high-handed  oppression. 

In  faithful  keeping  with  these  decrees,  the  index  which  I  hold  in 
my  hand,  on  its  thirtieth  page,  actually  forbids  the  reading  of  the 
Bible,  and  not  the  Protestant  Bible,  (as  my  Rev.  friend  tried  in  the 
late  controversy  to  make  appear,)  but  the  very  Roman  Bible,  with 
all  its  parts,  sanctioned  by  the  church,  in  every  possible  translation, 
is  prohibited  ;  as  follows:  "  Biblia  Vulgari  quocunque  Idiomate  con- 
scrip  ta.  That  IS,  The  Bible,  in  whatever  idiom  avritten,  (is 
prohibited.)  Finally,  I  have  before  me  a  decision  fresh  from  Rome, 
viz.  the  Encyclical  (circular)  letter  of  the  present  reigning  Pope, 
Gregory  XVI.,  addressed  to  the  faithful  all  over  the  world,  and 
written  at  his  coronation,  dated  August  5th,  1832.  The  following 
are  extracts  : 

*'  Towards  this  point  ttnds  that  most  vile,  detestable,  and  never 
to  be  sufficiently  execrated  liberty  of  booksellers,  namely,  of  publish- 
ing writings  of  whatsoever  kind  they  please  ;  a  liberty  which  some 
persons  dare  with  such  violence  of  language  to  demand  and  pro- 
mote.'' 

"  Far  different,  was  the  discipline  of  the  church  in  extirpating  the 


43 

intection  of  bad  books,  even  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles ;  who,  we 
read,  publicly  burned  a  vast  quantity  of  books. ^^ 

*'  Let  it  suffice  to  read  oter  the  laws  passed  on  that  point  in  the 
Fifth  Council  of  Lateran,  and  the  constitution  which  subsequently 
was  published  by  our  predecessor  of  happy  memory,  Leo  X.  Let 
not  that  which  was  happily  invented  for  the  increasing  of  the  faith, 
and  spread  of  good  learning,  be  converted  to  a  contrary  purpose, 
and  bring  harm  to  the  salvation  of  faithful  Christians." 

"  This  matter  also  occupied  extremely  the  attention  of  the  fathers 
of  Trent,  who  applied  a  remedy  to  so  great  an  evil,  by  publishing 
a  most  salutary  decree,  for  comjnling  an  index  of  books,  in  which 
improper  doctrine  was  contained.  Clement  XIIL,  our  predecessor 
of  happy  memory,  in  his  encyclical  letter  on  the  suppression  of 
noxious  books,  pronounces — "  We  must  contend  with  energy  such 
as  the  subject  requires,  and  with  all  our  might  exterminate  the  deadly 
mischief  of  so  Qnany  books ;  for  the  matter  of  error  will  never  be 
effectually  removed  unless  the  guilty  elements  of  depravity  be  con- 
sumed in  theflamesy 

*'  So  that  by  this  continual  solicitude,  through  all  ages,  with 
which  the  Holy  Apostolic  See  has  ever  striven,  to  condemn  suspect- 
ed and  noxious  hooks,  and  to  wrest  them  forcibly  out  ofmen^s  hands; 
it  is  most  clear  how  false,  rash,  and  injurious  to  the  said  Apostolic 
See,  and  fruitful  of  enormous  evils  to  the  Christian  public,  is  the 
doctrine  of  those,  who  not  only  reject  the  censorship  of  books,  as 
too  severe  and  burdensome ;  but  even  proceed  to  that  length  of 
wickedness,  as  to  assert,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  equal 
justice;  and  dare  deny  to  the  church,  the  right  of  enacting  and  em- 
ploying it.^^ 

Now  perhaps  my  Eeverend  friend  may  say,  these  are  only  opinions 
of  the  Pope.  Well — but  the  universal  church  has  seemed  for  three 
years  to  approve  them,  and  of  course  they  become  law.  If  not,  does 
Mr.  Hughes  denounce  and  condemn  them  ?  Does  he  deny  their 
truth,  their  wisdom,  their  righteousness,  or  their  authority?  Be- 
sides, will  not  his  reply  be  also  an  opinion?  Who  are  we  to  credit? 
the  Pope  or  the  priest  ?  If  they  differ,  where  is  infallibility  ?  If 
they  differ,  who  is  to  he  followed?  If  they  differ,  the  Pope  is  surely 
the  more  excathedra,  impartial,  authorized  expounder  of  the  doctrine 
and  discipline  of  the  church ; — and  especially  as  he  quotes  general 
councils  to  sustain  him. 


44 


"  Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples  or  cloctiHnes,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  7^'' 


NEGATIVE  I.— MR.  HUGHES. 

Mr.  President: — The  gentleman  commences  his  argument  by 
an  attack  on  the  liberty  of  the  press.  The  article  of  which  he  com- 
plains, is  a  true  statement  of  the  facts,  although  it  is  inaccurate  in 
a  few  details  of  a  merely  circumstantial  character,  the  correction  of 
which,  would,  in  my  opinion,  tend  rather  to  irritate  than  to  soothe 
his  wounded  feelings.  The  Society  were  witnesses  of  what  oc- 
curred, and  of  course  competent  to  specify  the  .  pretended  mis- 
statements. If  they  cannot  do  this,  it  is  unreasonable  to  require 
the  reparation  that  is  demanded.  For  this,  neither  is  it  necessary 
that  the  gentleman  should  be  made  acquainted  with  the  name  of 
the  writer;  and  the  gentleman's  demand  to  have  that  name  given 
up  to  him,  is  a  pretty  fair  sample  of  what  Presbyterians  understand 
by  civil  and  religious  liberty. 

If  it  be  said  that  the  paper  called  the  Presbyterian,  gave  the  cor- 
rection of  misrepresentation  in  regard  to  a  previous  debate — the 
answer  is,  that  the  cases  are  entirely  dissimilar.  There,  the  false- 
hoods were  specifically  attested  by  the  Society, — here,  they  have  not 
been  pointed  out ;  because  they  do  not  exist.  There,  they  were 
acknowledged, — here,  they  are  denied.  There,  the  author  of  the 
acknowledged  /«/sz^crf^zow  of  facts,  was  npt  inqidrcd  afttr ; — here, 
though  the  falsification  has  not  been  specified,  and  cannot  be  proved, 
still  the  author  is  peremptorily  demanded,  as  if  the  object  were  to  in- 
flict upon  him  a  personal  chastisement.  Let  the  gentleman  show 
wherein  he  has  been  injured,  except  by  the  statement  of  truth,  and 
I  pledge  myself  that  he  shall  have  reparation. 

His  next  topic  is  my  definition  of  civil  liberty,  which  has  been 
rejected  as  willingly  by  myself  as  by  him.  He  has  stated  my  motives 
for  having  offered  it.  They  were,  of  coarse,  such  as  the  eyes  of  a 
Presbyterian  can  always  discover  in  the  breast  of  a  Catholic.  The 
public  must  judge  whether  their  baseness  is  to  be  ascribed  to  their 
supposed  origin,  or  to  the  medium  through  which  they  are  made  to 
pass,  in  the  gentleman's  analysis  of  my  thoughts,  which  was  never 
revealed  to  him.  There  has  been  nothing  in  my  conduct  to  justify 
such  insinuations;  and  I  shall  dismiss  the  topic  with  the  single  re- 
mark, that  a  mind  conscious  of  its  oivn  rectitude,  is  slow  to  indulge 
in  the  gratuitous  imputation  of  bad  motives  to  others. 


45 

Before  I  proceed  to  lay  down  the  principles  involved  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  present  question,  I  must  briefly  advert  to  some  of 
those  assumptions,  which  the  gentleman  has  selected  for  the  occa- 
sion, and  would  dignify  by  the  appellation  of  "  principles."     He  has 
charged  on  me,  as  an  error  sanctioned  by  Catholic  authority/ — "  that 
the  majority  shall  rule."     Of  course  the  true  Presbyterian  doctrine 
must  be,  that  the  right  of  ruling  belongs  to  the  minority.     Now,  1 
maintain,  as  a  general  principle  of  all  free  and  popular  governments,' 
the  very  doctrine  which   the  gentleman   has  here  condemned.     I 
hold  it  to  be  self-evident ; — and  I  say  that  the  opposite  doctrine  is 
suited  to  the  meredian  of  despotism  all  over  the  world.     It  is  the 
majority  that  rules  in  this  country,  from  the  chief  magistrate  down 
to  the  township  constable.     In  Russia,  it  is  the  minority.     The  gen- 
tleman's first  principle,  so  called,  is  adverse  to  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  our  republican  government — and  furnishes  the  very  text  by 
which  kings  and  tyrants  govern.     Neither  does  it  follow,  as  he  pre- 
tends, that,  admitting  my  principle,  the  majority  would  have  "  a  right 
to  do  wrong."     There  is  no  such  right,  in  either-  the  nnrajority  or 
the  minority.     "  And  then,'^  says  he,  "  if  the  day  should  ever  cojne, 
when  Roman  Catholics  icill  compose  the  majority  in  this  country, 
they  may,  of  right,  establish  their  religion  by  laio.^^     Why,  if  the 
minority  are  to  rule,  as  the  gentleman  seems  to  maintain,  there  is  no 
reason  why  the  Presbyterians  might  not  do  noiv,  what  it  is  pretended 
the  Catholics  could  do  "  if  ever  the  day  should  come,"  &/C.  &lc. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  right  of  the  majority 
to  rule,  is  circumscribed  in  a  free  government  by  the  boundaries  of 
civil  jurisdiction.     It  means  that  the  laws  passed  by  the  majority  for 
the' civil  well-being  of  society,  are  to  be  obeyed  by  the  minority,  and 
by  all.     But  it  does  not  mean  that  the  majority  have  any  right  to  be 
tyrants,  by  making  a  religion,  as  when  the  Westminster  Assembly 
met;  or  daring  to  rule  for  the  minority  in  relation  to  another  world, 
as  well  as  this.     The  question  of  religion  does  not  appertain  to  state 
mcijorities:  it  is  a  spiritual  concern  between  man  and  his  God.     So 
that  the  consequence,  which  the  gentleman  pretends  to  derive  from 
my  principle,  is  the  legitimate  offspring  of  his  own  bad  logic.     The 
Catholics  are  but  as  one  to  twenty-six  of  the  population;  and  if  we 
suppose  with  the  gentleman,  that  they  should   become  a  majority, 
and  establish  their  religion  by  law,  they  would  be  stil)  only  imitating 
an  example  which  the  Presbyterians  have  set  to  all  denominations, 
whenever  they  had  the  power.     The  history  of  his  own  sect  furnishes 
the  <rMe  shades  to  the  false  lights  of  his  picture.     Does  it  follow, 
from  my  principle,  recognising  the  right  of  the  majority  to  rule,  that 
because  the  Presbyterians  were  the  majority  in  Scotland  and  New 
England  they  had  therefore  the  right  to  take  away  the  lives  of  men 
who  differed  from  them  in  religious  opinion?     No:  it  only  follows 
that  they  had  the  power — and  we  all  know  what  use  they  made  of 
it.     Now  it  is  singular  that  the  gentleman  should  have  entered,  nay, 
forced  himself,  on  this  discussion,  without  having  taken  pains  to 


46 
clear  up,  m  his  own  mind,  the  very  important  distinction  between 

RIGHT  and  POWER. 

Tlius,  the  action  of  the  majority-principle,  is  restricted  by  the  sphere 
of  the  purely  civii  and  social  relations.  It  has  nothing  to  dp  with 
those  "  natural  and  imprescriptible  rights  which  lie  aback  of  all  con- 
ventions." These  belong  to  another  category,  and  shall  be  treated 
of  in  their  proper  place.  That  the  gentleman  should  have  con- 
founded them  with  civil  and  social  7'ights,  is  the  more  surprising,  as 
the  constitution  has  expressly  excepted  them  from  the  operation 
of  the  principle,  which  that  same  constitution  has  sanctioned,  for 
the  regulation  of  social  rights;  and  this  exception  the  gentleman 
has  quoted,  without  seeming  to  comprehend  its  meaning.  '^  All  men 
have  a  natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  worship  Almighty  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences;  no  man  can,  of 
RIGHT,  he  compelled  to  attend,  erect,  or  support,  any  place  of  wor- 
ship, or  to  maintain  any  ministry  against  his  consent;  no  human 
authority  can,  in  any  case  whatever,  control  or  interfere  with  the 
rights  of  conscience,  and  no  preference  shall  ever  he  given  by  law 
to  any  religious  estahlishment  or  any  modes  of  zvorshij)." 

Here  are  the  rights  which  the  constitution  recognises,  as  inde- 
feasible and  natural — equally  beyond  the  reach  of  the  majority  and 
minority.  These,  then,  have  no  reference  to  the  civil  or  political 
rights,  secured  by  the  national  instrument  in  question,  but  to  reli- 
gious, spiritual  rights,  which  are  to  be  inviolable.  And  yet,  it  was 
for  the  exercise  Of  this  prerogative,  under  the  faith  of  that  constitu- 
tion, that  the  Convent  was  burned  down;  and  that  a  Presbyterian 
crusade  is  now  proclaimed  throughout  the  land  against  Catholic 
citizens.  It  was  by  the  violation  of  these  principles,  that  the  same 
Presbyterians,  in  former  days,  shed  the  blood,  and  seized  the  pro- 
perty of  other  denominations  of  Christians,  whenever  they  were 
possessed  of  political  power  to  do  so.  And  since  the  gentleman 
tells  us,  that  these  principles  "  are  confirmed  and  illustrated  by  the 
Gospel:" — it  follows,  on  his  own  showing,  that  for  their  knowledge 
of  the  Gospel,  Presbyterians  are  indebted  to  the  constitution,  which 
took  from  them  the  poiver  of  oppressing  men  for  conscience  sake. 
Now,  these  are  the  imprescriptible  rights  of  man.  My  argument 
leaves  them  precisely  where  the  constitution  places  them  ;  and  when 
the  gentleman  represents  me  as  advocating  their  infringement,  on 
the  "ground  that  the  "  majority  has  the  right  to  govern,"  he  only 
furnishes  another  specimen  of  his  vicious  reasoning.  They  are 
inalienable;  and  therefore  every  Catholic,  and  every  Protestant,  wor- 
ships God  "  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,"  and 
not  that  of  the  priesthood,  nor  of  the  presbytery.  The  gentleman 
reckons  among  these  natural  rights,  translations,  printing,  and  the 
unbounded  freedom  of  the  press.  By  this  we  can  discover  how 
much  attention  he  has  not  paid  to  the  subject.  Natural  rights  are 
rights  derived  from  nature,  common  to  all  men;  and  printing  is  as 
much  a  natural  right  as  steam-navigation,  or  the  use  of  gunpowder. 
These  are  all  acquired  rights — and  the  freest  government  is  that 


47 

which  puts  the  least  restraint  on  their  exercise.  If  printing  be  a 
natural  right,  why  did  the  gentleman  complain  of  its  exercise  in  the 
Ne\v  York  Diary?  He  tells  us  that  to  circulate  tlie  Bible  is  a 
**  natural  and  inalienable  right:"  1  answer,  that  if  each  one  has  the 
right  "  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  con- 
science," it  is'just  as  natural  a  right  and  as  inalienable,  not  to  circu- 
late the  Bible. 

From  the  moment  the  gentleman  read,  WMtliout  seeming  to  under- 
stand, the  doctrines  of  the  American  Constitution,  on  both  social 
and  natural  rights,  he  becomes,  at  once,  inspired  and  oracular. 
Hence  we  find  him  breaking  out  in  the  following  rhapsody,  which 
contains  about  as  much  solemn  nonsense  as  it  is  possible  to  express 
in  so  many  words.  The  reader  who  is  acquainted  with  the  history 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  knows  how  it  trampled  on  older 
rights,  in  Geneva,  Holland,  Scotland,  and  England,  graciously  be- 
trothing itself  to  the  Lmvs  of  the  State,  *'  for  better  and  for  worse," 
will  smile  at  the  gravity  with  which  the  gentleman  gives  in  the  fol- 
lowing catalogue  of  **  usurpations  on  the  natural  rights  of  men." 

"According  to  this  definition,  churches  established  by  law,  by 
kings  or  pontiffs,  and  maintained  by  coercion,  are  an  invasion  of  the 
natural  Jiberties  of  men."  (This  is  a  good  hit  at  the  present  churches 
of  England  and  Scotland,  and  Denmark  and. Sweden  and  Holland. 
All  of  them  were  established  as  the  gentleman  describes.  But 
mark  his  logical  conclusion.)  "  Therefore  the  Roman  hierarchy 
was  an  usurp atioyi  m  the  days  of  Luther,  and  is  so  nmv  wherever  its 
power  is  felt,  as  in  South  America,  Spain,  and  the  temporal  domi- 
nions of  the  Pope."  (That  is,  the  Presbyterians  claim  your  property, 
and  therefore  you  hold  it  by  "  usurpation.")  *'  All  territorial  pre- 
cincts, such  as  parishes,"  (or  presbyterial  boundaries  by  geography) 
**  dioceses,  and  the  assigning  by  the  authority  of  law  of  the  inhabi- 
tants within  them  to  the  jurisdiction  of  an  ecclesiastic,  and  the  ex- 
action of  tithes,  or  other  rateable  stipends  for  ecclesiastical  uses, 
upon  pretence  of  ecclesiastical  or  temporal  power,  is  an  invasion  of 
the  rights. of  man ;  and  therefore  the  government  of  the  Pope  in 
his  own  dominions,  and  in  the  dominions  of  those  sovereigns 
who  acknowledge  his  pretensions,  is  an  usurpation,"  (that  is,  Mr. 
Breckinridge  being  judge,)  "  and  for  the  same  reason,  all  socie- 
ties established  by  ecclesiastical  authority,  the  object  of  which  is 
to  govern  the  temporal  affairs  by  means  of  the  spiritual,"  (as  the 
Presbyterian  parsons  are  now  doing,)  "  the  Jesuits  for  example, 
are  irreconcileably  repugnant  to  free  institutior^s."  When  the  gentle- 
man adduced  the  "  Jesuits  for  example,"  he  falsifies  absolutely  the 
object  of  their  institution.  For  the  rest,  he  wounds  as  many  friends 
as  foes.  '  -         • 

In  short,  the  gentleman  might  have  been  more  concise,  arid  told 
us  at  once,  that  all  jurisdiction  both  in  Church  and  Stale  is  a  usurpa- 
tion on  the  natural  rights  of  men,  save  and  except  that  which  is 
exercised  by  Congress  and  by  ihe  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian CHURCH.     As  this  conclusion  is  founded  on  false  premises 


48 

which  have  already  been  exposed,  it  would  be  wasting  tirae  if  we 
were  to  enter  on  the  exposition  of  its  special  absurdities.  He  .pro- 
ceeds to  speak  of  something  wliich  he  calls  "  this  article,"  and  says 
that  "  Roman  Catholics  cannot  concur  in  it,  who,  as  a  matter  of 
conscience,  ascribe  to- the  Pope  lawful  authority  to  invade  a  portion 
of  their  natural  liberties  ;  their  conscience  forbids  tliem  to  assert 
their  own  freedom,  or 'to  allow  to  Protestants  the  measure  of  freedom 
which  they  claim."  Without  pretending  to  know  what  the  "  article" 
is  to  which  the  gentleman  makes  such  pointed  allusion,  I  shall  reply 
to  the  reason  which  he  assigns  for  his  opinion.  That  reason  is  utterly 
FALSE.  He  calumniates  Catholics  when  he  says  they  ascribe  any 
such  "  lawful  authority"  to  the  Pope,  or  that  their  '*  conscience  for- 
bids them"  in  the  matter  described.  The  gentleman  thinks  the 
South  Americans  are  still  slaves,  because  they  did  not  throw  off  the 
profession  of  their  religion  at  the  same  time  when  they  asserted  their 
political'freedom.  The  same  might  be  said  of  the  North  Americans  for 
not  having  at  the  revolution  burst  the  fetters  of  MezVecclesiastical  bond- 
age. The  only  difference  I  can  see,  is,  that  in  the  one*  case,  the  peo- 
ple, if  the  gentleman  will  have  it  so,  chose  to  be  ridden  by  priests;  in 
the  other,  they  preferred  to  be  ridden  by  pa7'S07is  and  ihe'ir  fajni lies. 
The  people  of  South  America  have  the  lighter  burden.  The  gen- 
tleman ascribes  the  freedom  of  the  United  Slates  to  Luther.  I  say 
that  Faust,  by  inventing  printing,  contributed,  under  God,  much 
more  to  it  than  Luther.  *'  The  condition  of  the  vicious,  ignorant, 
superstitious  and  priest-ridden  inhabitants  of  South  America,  Spain, 
and  Italy,"  is  a  very  apiwopriate  and  consoling  phrase  on  the  lips 
of  the  Presbyterian  parsonhood,  when  they  are  pressing  on  their  own 
followers  with  a  weight  of  spiritual  and  temporal  domination,  whose 
little  finger  is  heavier  than  the  loins  of  Catholic  bondage  in  any  country 
under  the  sun.  The  tithes  in  most  Catholic  countries  are  but  a  trifle, 
compared  with  the  enormous  amount  of  money  which  is  extorted, 
for  one  object  or  another,  from  the  religions  portion  of  American 
Presbyterians.  It  is  true  the  parsons  do  not  send  the  constable  to 
collect  it,  but  they  send  forth  what  seems  to  answer  the  purpose  just 
as  well,  a  picture  of  the  premonitary  symptoms  of  "  election  and  re- 
probation." 

Next  comes  a  ''  sophism,"  which  the  gentlemen  undertakes  to 
expose  for  the  good  of  posterity.  It  consists  in  confounding  the  term 
*' voluntary"  with  the  term  "free."  We  must  pass  over  his 
illustrations.  If  they  have  not  the  merit  of  being  apposite  or  profound, 
they  have,  at  least,  that  of  being  diversified  and  numerous.  The 
whole  meaning,  however,  breaks  out  in  the  object  for  which  th6y 
were  adduced,  which  is  to  show  "  that  those  who  surrender  vo- 
luntarily the  natural  rights  of  conscience,  the  rights  of  free  worship 
to  a  spiritual  prince  or  poqtiff,  do  not  continue  to  be  free  in  these 
respects:  nay,  they  cannot  be  said  to  be  free  in  any  respect."  Now 
it  is  to  be  observed,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  gentleman's  notion  of 
freedom  would  place  the  human  mind  in  the  position  of  the  animal 
between  two  bundles  of  hay,  where  the  inducements  should  be  as 


.  -49 

strong  on  the  one  side  as  the  other.  Any  deviation  towards  either 
might  be  ''voluntary,"  but  it  would  not,  on  that  account,  he  tells  us,  be 
**free:'  Secondly,  according  to  his  distinction  all  laws,  in  Penn- 
sylvania and  elsewhere,  are  compatible  with  "  voluntary  submission," 
but  not  with  "freedom:'  So  that  the  sons  of  the  commonwealth 
have  the  honour  of  being  classed  by  him,  in  the  principle  of  their 
subjection,  with  the  "most  ignoble  of  ail  slaves,  voluntary  slaves." 
Thirdly,  if  the  gentleman,  in  striking  out  one  distinction,  had  not 
overlooked  another,  he  would  not  have  confounded  the  rights  of  50- 
ciety  with  those  which  are  natural  and  jjersonal  to  every  man. 
Fourthly,  nei'her  would  he  have  talked  of  "  surrendering'^  rights 
which  cannot  be  surrendered.  The  rights  of  conscience,  in  their 
personal  relation,  are  as  inalienable  as  the  rights  of  memory  ;  and  it 
is  just  as. absurd  to  talk  of"  surrendering"  the  one  as  the  other.  As 
to  the  rights  of  *"'  free  worship,"  they  are  of  that  order  which  the  Pres- 
byterians denied  to  Catholics  in.Scotland  when  they  made  it  death  to 
have  SAID  or  heard  7nass  three  times,  and  denied  to  the  Episcopa- 
lians, when  they  punished  them  by  civil  penalties.. for  reading  the 
common  prayer-book,  even  in  private  families.  These  rights  may  be 
taken  away  by  the  power  of  bigotry  and  despotism  united;  but  to 
talk  of  their  being  "surrendered,"  either  '' freely"  or ''  voluntarily," 
is  too  absurd.  Finally,  supposing  the  thing  possible,  the  charge 
stands  as  pointedly  against  those  who  "  surrender"  these  rights  to 
the  spiritual  junto,  called  the  General  Assembly,  as  if  they  were  re- 
signed to  the  "  spiritual  pontiff." 

Having  thus  briefly  exposed  the  absurdity  of  some  of  what  the  gen- 
tleman calls  first  principles,  his  inferences  perish  with  the  mistaken 
premises  on  which  he  thought  them  established.  Before  I  advert  to 
what  he  calls  "  the  tyranny  of  Romanism,"  it  is  proper  to  lay  down 
the  true  principles,^  by  which  the  merits  of  the  present  discussion 
can  alone  be  tested.  The  question  is,  whether  the  "  religions" 
called  the  "  Roman  Catholic"  and  Presbyterian"  are  opposed  in  any 
or  a// of  their  doctrines  or  principles  to  civil  and  religious  liberty. 
The  gentleman  and  myself  have,  by  a  written  agreement,  deter- 
mined and  fixed  the  meaning  of  the  terms  employed.  If  he  had 
adhered  to  his  engagement,  and  abided  by  his  own  definitions,  the 
question  would  be  extremely  simple  ;  but  such  an  instance  of  good 
faith  was  more  than  my  experience  should  have  taught  me  to  expect. 

Accordingly,  in  the  very  first  speech,  we  find  him  quitting  the  de- 
finition which  he  could  understand,  and  plunging  into  the  mysticism 
of  universal  ethics,  far  beyond  his  depth; — confounding  all  rights, 
personal  and  social,  human  and  divine,  in  order  to  extract  from  the 
confusion,  materials  for  the  unhallowed  purpose  of  Presbyterian  zeal, 
which  is,  to  excite  odium  against  Catholic  citizens,  under  pretence  of 
advocating  "civil  and  religious  liberty." 

Let  us  endeavour  to  introduce  order  into  the  chaos  of  his  specula- 
tions. Rights  are  privileges  either  inherent  in  our  nature,  or  derived 
from  some  extrinsic  source.  The  former  class  are  termed  natural, 
INDEFEASIBLE,  imprescriptible  and  eternal.     The  latter  are  classed 

7      ■ 


50 

under  various  heads  ; — lliose  which  are  derived  from  God  by  revela- 
tion, are  termed  divine  rights ;  those  which  result  from  the  social 
compact,  are  called  civil  or  political  rights  ;  when  that  compact  se- 
cures us'  in  the  privilege  of  exteknally  "  worshipping  Almighty 
God  according  to  the  dictates  of  our  conscience,"  it  guarantees  our 
religious  rights.  The  immunities  of  the  standing  which  we  hold  in 
the  ecclesiastical  body  to  which  we  belong,  are  termed  our  ecclesias- 
tical riirhts.     Let  us  explain. 

1.  Natural  Right.  If  every  man  were  living  by  himself, 
having  no  connexion  with  his  fellow-beings,  he  would  have  a  natural 
right  to  do  whatever  he  chose,  except  only  what  God  would  have 
forbidden  him.  He  might  be  a  king  without  subjects,  or  a  slave 
without  a  master.  He  might  print  treason  and  preach  sedition. 
And  the  reason  is,  that  he  alone  would  be  affected  by  his  proceed- 
ings. But  the  moment  he  enters  into  society,  the  natural  rights 
must  be  restrained.  Lei  the  society  be  composed  but  of  three  per- 
sons, he  has  no  right  to  league  with  the  second,  in  order,  by  calum- 
niating, to  oppress  the  third.  In  proportion  as  the  interests  of  society 
would  become  more  complex  and  diversified,  in  the  same  proportion 
the  natural  rights  of  each  individual  should  have  to  yield  to  the  pa- 
ramount good  of  the  whole.  At  one  period  of  mankind  it  was  a 
natural  right  for  a  brother  to  marry  a  sister — for  a  man  to  have  seve- 
ral wives  at  the  same  time ;  at  another  period,  society  has  prohibited 
the  exercise  of  this  right,  and  yet  I  trust  the  gentleman  will  not 
adopt  the  conclusions  to  which  his  pretended  principles  lead,  and 
accuse  society  of  being  guilty  of  "  tyranny"  by  invading  the  natural 
rights  of  man.  When  individuals  offend  against  the  rights  of  so- 
ciety, society  robs  them  of  the  natural  rights — freedom,  life.  Is 
this  tyranny? 

2.  Divine  Right.  This  is  the  authority  with  which  God  has  in- 
vested certain  men  and  conditions  of  life,  for  some  purpose  of  good. 
Thus,  Moses,  after  his  appointment,  had  the  right  to  command  the 
people  of  God.  The  Jewish  priesthood  had  the  right  to  offer  sacri- 
fices. The  apostles  had  the  right  to  establish  Christianity,  and 
their  legitimate  successors  have  the  right  to  perpetuate  it,  both  by 
the  preaching  of  the  word  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments. 
These  rights  are  peculiar  to  those  only,  to  whom  God  has  given 
them,  and  in  this  they  differ  from  natural  rights,  which  are  com- 
mon to  all  men.  Now  rights  and  duties  are  corelative  :  and  there- 
fore it  was  the  duty  of  the  people  of  God  to  obey  Moses,  and  it  is 
the  duty  of  men  to  hear  (and  practice)  the  doctrines  of  Christianity 
from  those  who  have  the  right  to  preach  them.  This  right  is  not 
derived  from  nature;  neither  is  it,  nor  can  it  be,  derived  from  civil 
authority.  And  consequently  those  who  have  not  received  the  divine 
appointment  to  exercise  it,  do  not  possess  it  at  all.  The  sphere, 
and  direct  object  of  this  right,  is  spiritual.  It  is  degraded  by  those 
who  wield  it  for  base,  temporal  purposes.  "My  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world."     The  excrcitc  of  this^  right  hi  no  usurpation,  except  by 


51 

those  who  did  not  receive  it  from  God,  and  could  not  receive  it  from 
any  other  source. 

3.  Political,  or  Civil  Rights,  are  "that  residuum  o/ natural 
liberty  which  is  not  required  by  the  laws  of  society  to  be  sacrificed  to 
public  convenie7ice ;  or  else  those  civil  privileges y  which  society  has 
engaged  to  provide  in  lieu  of  those  natural  liberties  so  given  up  by 
individuals.^^  This  definition  is  from  a  Protestant  jurist.  It  dis- 
tinguishes properly  between  those  natural  rights  which  the  laws  of 
society  do  not  require  us  to  sacrifice,  and  those  conventional  rights 
which  result  from  society  itsetf.  Hence  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  guarantees  the  citizen  in  the  enjoyment  of  theybrwer 
as  well  as  the  latter  division  of  those  rights.  •  It  recognises  the  pri- 
vilege of  every  man  "  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of 
his  own  conscience"  as  among  the  natural  rights  af  man.  It  pledges 
the  faith  of  the  nation  to  recognise  no  distinction  between  the  pro- 
fessors of  one  creed  and  those  of  another  ;  because  it  understands 
that  religion  is  a  matter  between  man  and  God.  In  this,  it  differs 
from  many  of  the  civil  constitutions  in  Catholic  states  ;  and  from  all 
the  civil  constitutions  that  were  ever  drawn  up  or  administered  by 
Calvinists.  In  short,  it  secures  unbounded  "  liberty  of  conscience." 
Again,  it  secures  in  lieu  of  the  natural  liberties,  which  it  abridges, 
all  the«advantages  of  social  assistance  :  which  could  not  be  realised 
except  by  the  legal  imposition  of  per50?ia/ restraint. 

/Fhe  idea  of  "  compelling''''  a  man  to  believe  this  doctrine,  or  that, 
is  an  absurdity.  Hence  the  privilege  of  believing,  as  an  act  of  the 
jnind,  bids  defiance  to  all  external poioer.  But  the  right  to  practice 
the  doctrines  that  one  believes,  must  be  exercised  in  harmony  with 
the  rights  of  others.  Thus,  for  example,  the  Presbyterians  believe 
that  God  has  commanded  them  to  "  remove  all  false  worship." 
Now,  they  can  believe  this  in  despite  of  the  Constitution  :  they  may 
even  preach  and  publish  that  God  has  commanded  them  to  "  re- 
move all  false  worship ;"  but  the  Constitution  interposes  between 
the  belief  and  practice  of  the  doctrine,. and  says,  *'  whether  God  has 
commanded  it  or  not^  you  shall  not  do  it.''''  And  why  ?  Because 
what  Priksbyterians  believe  to  be  *'  false  worship,"  other  denomin- 
ations believe  to  be  "  true  worship  ;"  and  to  allow  the  Presbyterians 
io  practice  their  belief  on  this  point,  would  be  to  allow  thern  to  in- 
vade the  rights  and  tyrannise  over  the  consciences  of  their  fellow- 
citizens,  to  whom  the  same  measure  of  religious  rights  is  secured  as 
to  themselves.  The  same  rule  would  apply  to  Catholics,  or  Metho- 
dists, or  Episcopalians. 

Finally  :  Ecclesiastical  Rights  are  those  privileges  secured  to 
individuals  according  to  their  stations,  and  resulting  from  the  eccle- 
siastical constitution,  or  usages  of  the  religious  society  to  which  he 
belongs.  Thus,  for  instance,  if  the  gentleman  should  be  accused 
of  heresy,  like  some  of  his  brethren,  he  would  have  a  i-ight  to  a  trial 
according  to  the  usual  forms  among  presbyterians.  He  would  be 
arraigned  before  his  presbytery,  and  if  the  majority  pronounced 
him  innocent  he  would    be  acquitted.     He  might  refuse  the  trial — 


52 

tell  his  peers  that  he  must  "worship  God  according  to  the  dictates 
of  his  own  conscience,  and  not  that  of  the  presbytery  :"  "  that  if  he 
submitted  to  their  authority  he  would  not  be  ^  free  man,  but  a  vo- 
luntary slave,  and  thereTore  a  most  base  and  ignoble  slave."  He 
might  tell  them  that  "  aback  of  all  conventions,"  &lz.  These  are 
the  rules,  which  in  his  pretended  principles  he  has  laid  down  for 
Catholics;  and  yet  he  knows  that  if  he  insisted  on  them,  in  such 
circumstances,  hq  would  soon  feel  the  weight  and  the  smart  of  the 
discipline — Calvinistic. 

Thus,  Mr.  President,  you  perceive  that  there  are  rights  of  various 
and  distinct  orders.  That  the  application  of  those  rights  must  be  in 
the  order  of  the  subjects  to  which  they  are  applicable.  That  to  con- 
found them  in  one  common  mass,  and  then  apply  the  principles  of 
one  order  of  rights  to  the  circumstances  of  another  order,  as  the 
gentleman  has  attempted  to  do,  would  be  just  as  absurd  (though 
perhaps  not  so  striking  in  the  minds  of  this  audience)  as  if  he  under 
took  to  prove  the  mysteries  of  the  Christianreligion  by  the  axioms 
of  mathematics,  or  to  prove  the  problems  of  Euclid  by  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

These  principles  are  so  clear,  that  they  cannot  be  denied  consis- 
tently with  sense  or  reason.  They  are  in  the  nature  of  things  ; 
aTid  constitute  the  pulse  of  civil  and  religious  organization.  The 
individual  who  would  exempt  himself  from  the  discharge  of  either 
social  or  ecclesiastical  duties,  as  established  in  the  state  by  lawful 
authority,  or  in  the  religious  body  of  which  he  is  a  member,  by  an 
appeal  to  his  pretended  natural  rights,  would  justly  be  regarded  as 
unworthy  to  participate  in  the  advantages  of  either.  The  culprit  at* 
the  bar  might,  if  this  were  not  so,  appeal  for  his  rights  to  the  tribunal 
of  the  "general  assembly;"  and  the  individual,  deposed  or  con- 
demned by  that  body  for  heresy,  might  carry  his  grievance  before 
congress.  All,  to  escape  punishment,  might  reject  the  jurisdiction 
of  society,  and  proclaim  that  there  is  no  power  on  earth  that  has  a 
right  to  rob  them  of  their  natural  liberties,  or  make  them  **  less  free 
than  God  has  made  them  free."  Mankind  could  not  exist  under  the 
shock  of  such  doctrine.  The  frame  of  the  social  edifice  would  be 
broken  to  pieces  by  its  application.  * 

Now,  the  gentleman  has  himself  argreed  that  every  man  has  a 
**  right  to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his 
own  conscience,  without  invading  or  injuring  the  rights  of  others." 
Therefore  if  my  conscience  dictates  to  me  that  the  worship  of  the 
Catholic  religion  is  that  which  is  most  pleasing  to  Almighty  God,  I 
have  the  absolute  right  to  embrace  and  profess  that  religion.  Having 
the  right  to  profess  that  religion,  it  becomes  my  duly  to  comply  with 
the  terms  of  its  communion  /rom  the  mornent  tohcn  I  ivish  to  be  ad- 
mitted a  member.  How  far  this  compliance  abridges  my  natural 
rights  is  a  question  which  is  personal  to  me,  and  on  which  I  am  not 
to  be  dictated  to  by  others.  It  is  a  part  of  the  judgment  which  all 
acknowledge  the  right  in  every  man  to  form  for  himself 

The  question,  then,  before  this  Society  is,  whether  "  that  religion 


53 

in  any  or  all  of  its  principles  or  doctrines  is  opposed  to  civil  or  reli- 
gious liberty."  By  DOCTRINES  you  are  to  understand  "  those  tenets 
oi  faith  and  morals  which  it  teaches  as  having  been  revealed  by 
Almighty  God." 

The  gentleman  has  taken  it  for  granted  that  he  has  proved  the 
affirmative  of  this  proposition  ;  and  when  we  know  with  what  entire 
satisfaction  of  mind,  men  sometimes  adopt  the  falsest  conclusions, 
we  may  find  charity  to  believe  him  sincere.  What  he  conceives  to 
be  Catholic  doctrine  may,  and  no  doubt  is,  opposed  to  what  he  con- 
ceives to  be  civil  and  religious  liberty.  But  if  his  "  conceptions"  be 
erroneous  ;  if  his  information  be  but  partial  and  unsound  ;  if  his 
reasoning,  even  on  the  materials  he  has,  be  defective  ;  and,  in  fine, 
if  he  be  unconscious  of  all  this,  then  his  arriving  at  a  false  conclusion 
can  be  accounted  for  without  thfs  necessity  of  impeaching  his  sin- 
cerity. He  has  selected  **  Baptism,"  '*  Auricular  Confession,"  and 
the  "Liberty  of  the  Press,"  as  the  triple  foundation  of  his  argument 
and  inference.  Here,  then,  it  is  manifest  that  the  gentleman's  in- 
formation is  not  sound  ;  otherwise,  he  would  have  known  that  Ca- 
tholics do  not  teach  that  God  made  any  revelation  whatever  on  the 
subject  of  the  "  press,"  and  consequently  that  the  ''liberty,  or  the 
restraint  of  the  press"  forms  no  "  principle  or  doctrine"  of  the  Ca- 
tholic religion.  Common  sense  tells  us  that  the  press  can  be  em- 
ployed for  the  corruption  of  morals  and  the  destruction  of  Christianity, 
and  every  virtuous  mind  would  condemn  such  an  abuse  of  it.  But 
beyond  this  the  Catholic  Religion  has  no  "  doctrine"  on  the  sub- 
ject. 

The  decision  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  on  the  subject  of  baptism, 
merely  defines,  as  an  article  of  Catholic  doctrine,  that  persons  bap- 
tized in  infancy,  are  bound  to  discharge  the  duties  of  a  Christian 
life,  the  same  as  if  they  had  been  baptized  in  adult  age.  And  that 
the  Church  has  a  right  to  employ  other  means  to  enforce  this  obliga- 
tion, besides  '*  exclusion  from  the  eucharist  and  the  other  sacra- 
ments." I  presume  that  the  gentleman  does  not  deny  the  right  of 
the  Church  to  exclude  heresy.  He  seems  to  have  studied  the 
Catholic  religion  just  as  Tom  Paine  studied  the  Bible.  But  let  us, 
to  show'  the  nature  of  his  argument,  suppose  him  to  carry  his  doc- 
trine into  some  Presbyterian  pulpit.  Let  him  tell  the  young  persons 
who  were  baptized  in  infancy,  that  they  are  free  to  remove  the  **  in- 
delible brand  of  slavery,"  and  to  become  Jews  or  Mahomedans,  as 
they  prefer.  And  suppose  a  number  of  them  to  adopt  this  doctrine, 
what  would  be  the  course  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  relation  to 
the  matter? — It  would  *' compel'^  him  and  them  to  renounce  the 
heresy.  How? — By  suspension  from  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  would 
this  "  punishment"  be  all  the  means  of  coercion  within  the  power  of 
the  Church? — No:  "Excommunication"  might  and  would  follow, 
in  case  of  obstinacy.  How  then,  I  ask,  can  he  advocate,  in  this 
place,  a  doctrine  which  he  dare  not  preach  in  a  Presbyterian  pulpit? 
Shall  the  Catholic  Church  be  restricted  in  the  employment  of  cen- 
sures, to  suspension   from  the  sacraments, — and   the  Presbyterian 


54  • 

Church  indulged  with  the  right  of  employing  the  sword  of  excom- 
munication? By  virtue  of  Church  censures,  Presbyterians  claim 
the  power  "to  shut"  and  to  "  open"  the  kingdom;  and  shall  it  be 
*'  liberty"  to  exercise  this  power  among  them^  and  *'  slavery," 
tyranny,  to  exercise  it  among  Catholics?  Let  the  gentleman  con- 
sult his  own  "  Confession  of  Faith."  (1) 

But  he  has  told  you  that  in  the  canon,  the  "  doctrine  of  force  is 
distinctly  taught; — and  not  moral  force,  hui physical^'  This  asser- 
tion I  pronounce  to  be  emphatically  false.  And  I  give  it  that  de- 
signation, not  out  of  any  desire  to  offend,  but  to  throw  him  on  the 
necessity  of  furnishing  the  proof.  The  Council  asserted  the  right 
of  the  Church  to  employ  other  msans  besides  "  exclusion  from  the 
eucharist  and  other  sacraments;"  and  it  does  not  follow,  that  those 
other  means  7?iust  be  **  physical." 

His  whole  argument,  then,  may  be  stated  in  a  (ew  words ;  as  fol- 
low? : — 

**  The  Council  of  Trent  teaches,  that  ''  physical  force"  is  to  be 
employed  to  compel  persons  baptized  in  infancy,  to  lead  a  Christian 
life,  as  soon  as  they  have  grown  up." 

"  Therefore  this  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is  directly  and 
avowedly  destructive  of  religious  liberty." 

The  answer  and  the  refutation  are — that  his  premises  are  enl- 
phatically  false; — and  the  conclusion  is  like  the  premises, yizZse. 

I  am  surprised  that  the  gentleman's  mind  did  shrink  back, 
affrighted  at  the  absurdity  of  its  own  prejudice.  At  the  period  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  when  the  standard  of  apostacy  was  r-aised  on 
every  side — when  the  pure  light  of  the  Gospel,  as  the  apostates  from 
the  ancient  faith  were  pleased  to  call  their  notions,  was  beaming  in 
its  morning  brilliancy — when  the  echoes  of  Luther's  coarse  thunder 
were  still  reverberating  throughout  Europe — when  Calvin  was  bring- 
ing up  another  reformation,  and  Socinus  another  still, — then  it  was, 
the  gentleman  tells  you,  that  the  Council  of  Trent  decreed  that  the 
Church  should  employ  "  physical  force,"  to  compel  men  to  be  holy! 
If  this  be  a  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  it  has  never  been 
taught,  and  would  have  remained  a  secret  to  eternity,  if  he  had 
not  discovered  it  in  a  canon  of  the  Council — where  it  is  not  to  be 
found!  And  he  would  denounce  his  Catholic  fellow-citizens,  be- 
cause he  ACCUSES  them  falsely,  of  holding  a  doctrine,  which  they 
abhor,  and  which  exists  only  as  a  phantom  in  his  own  brain,  if  it 
exists  even  there ! 

From  baptism  he  goes  to  confession.  Here,  again,  if  the  gentle- 
man had  stated  our  doctrine  as  it  is,  and  saved  himself  the  trouble 
oi  inventing  a  creed  for  us,  his  apprehensions  for  the  safety  of"  civil 
and  religious  liberty,"  from  the  dangers  of  "  confession,"  would  have 
dissolved*  into  thin  air.  The  question  is  not  whether  our  doctrine 
on  this  subject  is  true; — it  is  enough  that  Catholics  believe  it  to  be 
so.     It  is  then  an  article  of  our  faith,  that  when  Christ,  speaking  to 

(1)'  Chapter  xxx.  p.  129,  On  Church  Censures. 


55 

his  apostles,  said,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost:  whose  sins  you 
shall  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  ;  and  whose  sins  ye  shall  retain,  they 
are  retained;''^  they  and  their  successors,  the  bishops  and  priests  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  received  power  to  absolve  any  truly  penitent 
sinner  from  his  sins.  God  having  thus  given  them  the  ministry  of 
reconciliation,  and  made  them  Christ's  legates,  (2)  Christ's  ministers, 
and  the  dispensers  of  the  mysteries  of  Christ, — and  given  them  pro- 
raise,  that  "  lohatsoever  they  should  loose  on  earth,  would  be  loosed  in 
heaven.^' — (3)  It  is  an  article  of  Catholic  faith,  that  whoever  comes  to 
them,  making  a  sincere  and  humble  confession  of  his  sins,  with  a 
frm  purpose  of  amendment,  and  a  sincere  resolution  of  turning  from 
his  evil  ways,  may,  and  does,  through  their  ministry,  receive  absolu- 
tion and  release  from  his  sins.  It  is  equally  an  article  of  faith,  that 
whoever  comes  without  i\iQ  due  preparation — without  repentance 
from  the  bottom  of  his  heart,  and  a  sincere  intention  of  forsaking 
his  sins,  receives  no  benefit  from  absolution,  but  adds  sin  to  sin,  by 
a  high  contempt  of  God's  mercy,  and  abuse  of  the  sacraments. 
Hence,  the  sacrament  of  penance,  for  the  reception  of  which  con- 
fession by  the  penitent  is  a  condition,  is  the  opposite  of  whatever  is 
sin.  The  bishop  or  priest  to  whom  the  confession  is  made,  is  said 
to  act  in  the  capacity  o^  judge. — 1st.  Because  he  has  to  judge  from 
the  signs  of  repentance,  whether  the  sins  are  to  be  •'  forgiven"  or 
"retained,"  i.e.  not  forgiven.  2dly.  Because  he  judges  of  the 
penance  which  the  sinner  should  undergo  in  this  life,  by  acts  of 
piety  or  self-denial.  This  confession  is  made  to  the  minister  of  the 
sacrament  alone,  because,  although  in  some  instances  in  the  early 
ages  of  the  Church  it  was  made  in  public,  yet  the  danger  of  pro- 
ducing more  scandal  than  edification  by  such  public  confession,  has 
been  considered  as  a  sufficient  reason  for  making  the  discipline  uni- 
form. The  penitent  must  confess  all  his  sins;  for  his  concealing  any 
of  them  knowingly,  would  indicate  a  want  of  sincerity,  and  render 
him  unworthy  of  that  mercy  and  forgiveness,  which  Jesus  Christ 
exercises  by  the  ministry  of  his  priests.  The  Council  of  Trent  ob- 
served, that  without  knowledge  of  the  sins  committed,  the  priest 
could  not  observe  equity  "  in  enjoining  the  penance."  "  .^quitatem 
servare  in  pcenis  injungendis," — the  gentleman's  ignorance  of  our 
doctrine,  has  made  him,  on  the  misconception  of  these  words,  re- 
present the  priest  as  "  inflicting  equitable  punishment."  And 
though  there  may,  in  his  case,  be  some  excuse  for  a  mis-translation, 
yet  we  know  not  how  to  account  for  his  putting  in  the  English  quo- 
tation, a  phrase  which  has  no  original  in  the  Latin  of  the  Council; 
as  in  the  quotation  from  the  14th  session,  the  words  "  as  a  part  of 
the  sacrament  of  penance."  The  gentleman  may,  if  he  choose, 
take  his  learning  at  second  hand,  but  he  himself  must  be  accountable 
.for  the  errors  which  it  contains. 

In  the    doctrine  here  stated,  my  opponent  thinks  he  discovers 
"  usurpation  on  the  prerogatives  of  God,"  **  blasphemy,"  "  forcing 

(-2)  2  Cor.  V.  18,  19.  r.\)  Matt,  xviii.  18.    . 


56 

the  subject,"  &^c.  If  God  has  appointed  the  sacrament  of  penance 
as  the  means  of  reconciliation  ;  if  He  has  imparted  to  the  ministers 
of  his  church  the  power  of  absolving  penitent  sinners;  if  confession 
be  a  condition  for  the  exercise  of  that  power,  as  Catholics  believe  ; 
then,  according  to  his  reasoning  it  is  "  blasphemy,"  "  usurpation," 
tyranny,  slavery,  and  what  not,  to  do  what  God  has  commanded! — 
to  comply  with  the  conditions  on  which  forgiveness  and  pardon  de- 
pend !  The  children  of  fore-ordination  and  fatality  may,  as  "  Ameri- 
can freemen,"  hold  God  obliged  to  pardon  their  sins,  in  the  way 
most  agreeable  to  themselves.  Catholics  are  happy  to  receive  that 
pardon  in  the  way  that  God  himself  has  appointed,  although  the 
means  may  be  humiliating  to  the  pride  of  the'corrupt  heart. 

If  then,  as  the  Catholics  believe,  and  are  able  to  prove,  CJirist 
appointed  the  sacrament  of  penance  as  the  means  of  reconciliation 
between  the  repentant  sinner  and  God,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  "  wife," 
the  "  sister,"  the  "  'daughter,"  to  have  recourse  to  it  as  often  as  their 
conscience  reproaches  them  with  having  violated  the  divine  law.  It 
is  their  rigid  to  do  so — their  inalienable  right,  and  none  but  a  tyrant 
would  interpose  to  prevent  them.  Yet  this  is  what  the  gentleman's 
argument  goes  to  authorise,  forcing  their  conscience.  If  this  be  a 
doctrine  of  revelation,  as  Catholics  believe,  then  it  is  as  compatible 
with  freedom  as  any  other  doctrine  of  revelation.  The  gentleman 
is  utterly  mistaken  when  he  says  that  priests  know  all  the  "  secrets 
of  all  the  villains  connected  with  their  church.^''  These  persons,  for 
the  reason  that  they  arc  villains,  never  go  to  confession.  They 
unite  Catholic  theory  with  Presbyterian  practice,  and  their  restoring 
ill-gotten  property  to  Protestants,  is  a  sign  of  their  conversion — that 
they  have  been  at  confession  and  mean  to  be  "  villains''^  no  longer. 

As  for  the  "state  of  every  priests'  mind,"  in  consequence  of  their 
having  to  listen  to  the  confessions  of  the  penitent,  the  gentleman 
need  not  be  at  all  uneasy.  There  have  been,  and  there  still  may  be 
bad  priests.  But  as  a  class,  they  will  not  shrink  from  a  comparison 
with  the  Presbyterian  clergy,  for  purity,  zeal,  learning,  charity,  and  dis- 
interestedness. And  in  confirmation  of  this  remark,  it  is  sufficient  to 
observe,  that  the  corrupt  dind  fallen  priest,  who  is  cast  forth  from  the 
sanctuary  he  has  profaned,  is  nevertheless  hailed  as  a  trophy,  if  he 
can  descend  to  turn  Presbyterian. 

The  argument  then  on  this  subject  may  be  stated  as  follows: 
"  The  doctrine  of  penance  is  a  system  of  *'  usurpation,'"  "  espionage,*' 
*'  blasphemy,''*  and  "  tyranny.^'' 

"  Therefore,  it  is  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty." 

Answer  and  refutation.  The  doctrine  of  penance  is  a  revelation 
af  Christ.  In  administering  or  receiving  that  sacrament  Catholics 
are  **  worshipping  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  conscience" 
— doing  what  Christ  commanded.  And  since  in  doing  what  Christ- 
has  commanded  there  is  neither  ^^  usurpation*'  nor  ^^  espionage,''* 
nor  "  blasphemy,''''  nor  "  tyranny,*''  therefore,  in  the  doctrine  of 
penance  there  is  nothing  opposed  to  either  civil  or  religious  liberty. 
The  gentleman  would  not  have  hazarded  such  an  argument,  had  he 


51 

not  been  ignorant  of  our  doctrine ;  his  conclusion  is  not  sustained 
by  arguments  drawn  from  Catholic  theology,  but  must  have  rested,  in 
his  mind,  on  those  absurd  Presbyterian  prejudices  which  he  imbibed 
in  the  nursery,  and  from  whose  thraldom  his  subsequent  education 
was  not  calculated  to  emancipate  him. 

It  is  true,  that  the  doctrine  of  penance  may  he  abused,  but  in  this, 
it  is  like  every  best  gift  of  Heaven  to  men.  But  the  stern  discipline 
of  the  church  degrades  for  life  the  faithless  minister,  who  would  sa- 
crilegiously pervert  it  to  any  other  end,  save  that  for  which  it  was  insti- 
t\Ue.(\. 

T^he  third  argument  on  which  the  gentioinan  would  make  it  ap- 
pear that  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  church  are  opposed  to  "civil 
and  religious  liberty,"  is  the  freedom  of  the  press.  Now  the  fretir 
dom  of  the  press  is  as  much  a  nocTRfNE  of  the  church  as  Symmes' 
Theory  of  the  Poles.  Hence,  the  objection  on  this  ground  lias  no 
force.  There  is  not  in  the  whole  creed,  a  doctrine  which  forbids  me, 
as  a  Catholic  priest,  to  advocate  the  most  unbounded  freedom  of  the 
press. 

If  the  gentleman  knew  a  little  more  of  the  history  of  printing,  as 
an  art,  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  inform  him,  that  the  popes,  and 
cardinals,  and  bishops  were  its  patrons,  and  the  first  use  to  which  it 
was  applied  was  the  publication  of  the  Scriptures.  If  he  will 
consult  the  writings  on  bibliography,  of  Le  Long,  or  of  Clement,  a 
Protestant,  he  will  discover  that  there  had  been  published  in  the  Ita- 
lian Iwiguage  nloue,  forty  different  editions  of  the  Scriptures,  before 
the  first  Protestant  version  of  Geneva,  which  was  in  1562.  There  had 
been  ten  editions  of  the  Italian  Bible  of  Malhermi,  printed  between 
the  years  1471  and  1484.  These  facts  ought  to  shame  the  ignorance^ 
and  silence  the  hereditary  slanders,  of  those  who,  like  the  gentleman, 
pretend  that  printing,  and  the  publication  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  are 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  church.  One  single  Italian  city,  within 
thirty  years  after  the  invention  of  the  press,  and  before  Protestant- 
ism was  born,  publishes  the  Bible  in  the  Italian  language,  at  the  rate 
of  an  edition  every  year,  of  eight  out  of  ten  years,  and  yet  it  is  said 
that  this  was  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  church,  and  cre- 
dulity swallows  the  falsehood  1 

The  object  of  all  the  regulations  made  in  regard  to  the  printing, 
publishing,  and  reading  of  books,  waste  preserve  the  faith  of  Christ 
from  the  admixture  of  errors,  introduced  at  the  apostacy  of  the  16th 
century.  It  was  to  check  the  licentiousness,  not  to  destroy  the 
liberty  of  printing,  publishing,  and  reading.  The  church,  as  the  de- 
pository of  the  true  doctrines,  has  a  right  to  condemn  and  exclude, 
by  the  exercise  of  spiritual  authority,  all  heretical  and  impious 
books,  those  of  Calvin  as  well  as  those  of  Voltaire.  Wherever  this 
right  has  been  maintained  by  temporal  penalties,  the  penalties  are 
for  the  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  state.  The  rules  of  the  Index 
from  which  the  gentleman  has  multiplied  quotations,  never  took 
effect,  except  where  the  civil  power  had  adopted  them.     There  were 

8 


56 

many  Catholic  nations  in  which  they  were  never  published  or  heard 
of, a  sufficient  proof  that  they  constitute  no  portion  of  Catholic  doc- 
trine. 

The  gentleman  says  that,  in  page  30,  the  Index  "  actually  for- 
bids the  reading  of  the  Bible,  and  not  the  Protestant  Bible,  (as  my 
Rev.  Friend  tried  in  the  late  controversy  to  make  appear,)  but  the 
very  Roman  Bible  with  all  its  parts,  sanctioned  by  the  church,  iri 
every  possible  translatio7i  IS  prohibited,  as  follows:  "  Biblia  vulgari 
quocunque  idiomate  conscripta,"  that  is,  ''  the  Bible  in  what- 
ever IDIOM  wRiTTRiv  (is  prohibited)."  I  have  not  seen  his  ropy  of 
this  Index,  but  T  havp  no  hesitation  to  pronounce  the  statement  here 
made  to  be  false,  and  unwarranted  by  the  original.  1  challenge  the 
proof.  He  must  furnish  it,  or  stand  accountable  to  public  opinion 
for  having  falsified  the  text,  and  adduced  forged  documents  to  prop 
his  cause. 

Finally,  he  adduces  the  Encyclical  letter  of  the  present  Pope. 
Well,  what  does  he  find  in  it,  except  a  praiseworthy  solicitude  to  pre- 
serve the  truth  of  God  pure,  in  books  of  doctrine  as  well  as  preaching  : 
complaints  that  the  world  is  inundated  with  bad  books,,  to  the  cor- 
ruption of  faith  and  morals,  and  the  destruction  of  souls.  The  Pope 
asserts  that  those  who  recognise  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  church, 
are  wicked  in  denying  her  right  to  exercise  censorship  over  books. 
He  denounces  tRe  conduct  of  those  men  who  labour  to  seduce  the 
faithful  into  the  mazes  of  error  and  doubt,  by  circulating  among  them 
mutilated  and  spurious  copies  of  the  Scripture,  and  telling  them  to 
reject  the  church  of  Christ,  and  to  become  their  own  guides.  He 
warns  the  flock  over  which  Christ  has  placed  him,  against  those  who 
come  among  them  in  sheep's  clothing,  or  when  they  cannot  do  this, 
send  their  errors  of  doctrine  most  innocently  bound  up  in  calf-skin. 
He  has  a  right  to  do  all  this — he  is  bound  to  do  it,  as  he  will  have  to 
appear  before  God,  to  answer  for  the  discharge  of  his  duty. 

But  it  does  not  follow  that  he  has  any  right,  or  temporal  authority, 
to  punish  by  civil  disabilities,  those  who  are  not  subject  to  the  civil 
laws  of  his  own  slate,  for  the  violation  of  those  principles.  He  does 
not  pretend  to  have  any.  And  hence  the  gentleman  may  discover 
that  the  "  Pope  and  the  Priest"  do  not  "  differ."  That  both  recog- 
nise the  right  to  denounce  counterfeit  copies  of  the  Scripture,  the 
writings  of  Calvin,  those  of  Voltaire,  Thomas  Paine,  and  all 
works  contrary  to  pure  morals  and  sound  doctrine.  Neither  does  it 
follow  that  they  are  enemies  of  the  **  liberty  of  the  press,"  unless  by 
liberty,  the  gentleman  means  licentiousness. 


59 


Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opj}Osed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty?^' 


AFFIRMATIVE  II.— MR.  BRECKINRIDGE, 

The  gentleman  began  his  reply  bye-barging  me  with  attacking 
the  liberty  of  the  press,  because  forsooth,  I  demanded  the  name  of  a 
scurrilous  writer,  who  has  anonymously  assailed  me  in  the  "  Catho- 
lic Dairy, ^''  and  who  refers  to  the  Rev.  gentleman  as  the  person 
from  whom  he  got  n  part  of  his  information.  Of  course  Mr.  Hughes 
knows  who  he  is,  and  whether  he  did  not  gej;  the  wliole  from  the 
same  quarter.  Now,  if  calling  for  the  name  of  a  libeller  be  an  inva- 
sion of  the  liberty  of  the  press,  (as  the  gentleman  says  it  is,)  can 
any  one  believe  him  in  earnest  when  he  attempts  to  excuse  and  even 
defend  the  present  reigning  Pope,  for  his  open  attacks  on  the  free- 
dom of  the  press,  read  by  me  when  I  last  addressed  this  audience? 

The  object  in  calling  for  the  name  was  not  "personal  chastise- 
ment," as  the  gentleman  intimates  ;  but  such  associations  of  mind 
are,  I  allow,  very  natural  to  his  system  ;  and  especially  from  the 
nearness  of  the  author  to  the  gentleman,  I  can  excuse  liim  for  de- 
siring to  shelter  him.  But  I  repeat  the  charges  already  uttered,  and 
pledge  myself  to  make  them  out  to  the  full,  whenever  the  name  of 
the  author  is  announced.  In  the  meantime,  and  especially  since  the 
gentleman  has  become  the  advocate  of  the  writer,  I  here  publicly 
lay  the  article  on  the  table,  and  hold  the  gentleman  responsible  for 
its  .contents. 

The  distinction  which  the  gentleman  has  striven  to  make  between 
thi's  piece  and  that  which  appeared  in  the  Presbyterian,  is  not  a  little 
remarkable,  especially  when  we  remember,  that  he  opposed  the  so- 
ciety's acting  on  it  this  evening  as  out  of  place, — and  now  makes 
their  not  acting  on  it  a  ground  of  fault !  Is  this  consistent,  or  can- 
did? But  in  due  time  they  will  act  on  it,  as  we  are  assured,  and 
give  to  the  author  good  reason  to  continue  in  a  darkness  which  wisely 
shuns  exposure.  I  dismiss  this  subject,  with  the  remark,  that  the 
fulsome  co7npliments  paid  to  Mr.  Hughes  in  that  piece,  is  another 
reason  why  the  name  is  withheld;  and  really,  Mr.  President,  they 
are  in  such  strong  contrast  with  the  history  of  the  evening,  which 
was  so  mortifying  to  his  friends,  that  I  should  have  mistaken  the 
praises,  for  irony,  but  for  other  parts  of  the  production. 

And  here  allow  me  thus  early  in  the  debate,  to  say,  that  nothing 
but  the  love  of  liberty  as  an  American,  and  of  truth  as  a  protestant 
Christian,  could  induce  me  to  subject  my  feelings  to  the  coarse  and 


GO 

lU-bred  impertinence  of  a  priesthood,  whose  temper  and  treatment 
towards  other  nion,  alternate  between  servility  to  their  spiritual  sove- 
reigns and  oppression  of  their  unhappy  subjects.  I  can  and  will 
bear  for  the  sake  of  the  f^reat  cause,  whatever  may  be  made  neces- 
sary— though,  thank  God,  I  am  not  forced  to  do  it  either  as  a  minion 
of  the  Pope,  or  the  subject  of  an  arrogant  and  \\\\g?LX  Jesuitism. 

The  first  thing  I  notice  is,  the  gentleman's  quibble  on  my  state- 
ment of  the  rights  of  minorities.  On  the  first  evening  of  our  meet- 
ing (which  happily  for  him  Avas  not  a  part  of  the  series  of  regular 
debates,)  he  had  said  that  a  man  did  not  drop  doivnfrom  the  clouds^ 
— but  grew  vp  under  an  existiyig  state  of  society  :  and  finding  a 
certain  government  established  by  the  majority  of  the  people,  2V ho 
had  a  right  to  rule,  that  he  had  no  right  to  interfere  with  the  order 
of  society  already  established.  Now  my  principle,  as  stated  this 
evening,  is,  that  the  majority  have  no  right  to  rule  in  violation  of 
certain  rights  of  the  minority.  He  pertly  replies  "  of  course  the 
Presbyterian  doctrine  must  be,  that  the  right  of  ruling  belongs  to  the 
minority."  I  answer  no.  That  is  as  ivrong  as  the  other— ^that  is 
aristocracy,  that  is  despotism. — Both  are  wrong.  There  are  certain 
rights  aback  of  all  minorities  and  majorities  which  are  not  lawfully 
in  i\\G  jioiver  of  man,  such  as  the  rights  of  conscience.  For  exam- 
ple : — the  Pope  of  Rome  lias  established  by  law,  the  Boman 
Catholic  religion,  and  no  subject  is  allowed  to  exercise  any  other 
worship.  Allowing  that  a  majority  of  the  people  wish  it  to  be  so, 
I  contend,  that,  in  this  case,  the  majority  have  no  right  to  enforce 
such  a  regulation. — The  minority,  (and  we  have  good  evidence  from 
year  to  year,  that  even  in  Rome  there  exists  a  minority,)  have  a  right 
to  worship  God  as  Protestants,  if  they  so  please.  But  it  will  be 
replied,  this  cannot  be  done  without  violating  the  laws  of  the  land. 
The  gentleman  has  said,  "  The  individual  ivho  woidd  exempt  him- 
self from  the  discharge  of  either  social  or  ecclesiastical  duties,  as 

ESTABLISHED  IN  THE  STATE  BY  LAWFUL    AUTHORITY,    Or    in    the    TcH- 

gious  body  of  which  he  is  a  member,  by  an  appeal  to  his  pretended 
natural  rights,  would  justly  be  regarded  as  unworthy  to  partici- 
pate  in  the  advantages  of  either.''^  This  is  truly  a  candid  admis- 
sion. Then,  ''hy  lawf id  authority,  civil  and  ecclesiastical  duties 
may  be  established-  in  a  state !"  Yes,  and  so  it  is  established  at 
Rome  at  this  day,  that  every  child  born  there,  and  every  subject, 
must  be  a  Catholic!  Now  I  say,  this  law,  if  passed  by  a  majority j 
(which  however  is  only  a  majority  of  Austrian  bayonets,)  makes 
the  majority  voluntary  slaves,  and  oppresses  the  minority.  The 
minority  have  no  right  to  enforce,  but  to  enjoy  their  religion;  so 
with  majorities.  If  this  be  not  so,  we  ask  the  gentleman,  does  he 
approve  or  condemn  the  Pope's  enforcing  his  religion  at  Rome?  Is 
it  consistent  with  freedom  of  conscience?  Is  not  the  temporal  power 
by  which  he  enforces  it,  an  usurped  and  tyrannic  exercise  of  power? 
If  he  were  in  this  land,  and  a  constitutional  majority  of  the  states 
were  to  alter  the  constitution,  so  as  to  make  the  Pope  temporal  and 


spiritual  head  of  the  nation  for  life,  and  his  successor  eligible  for  life 
by  a  few  Cardinals,  would  it  not  be  an  invasion  of  our  rights'?  Of 
the  rights  of  the  minority?  And  would  not  the  majority  be  volun- 
tary slaves  ?  But  this  is  the  way  the  Pope  rules  ;  and  this  is  the 
\vay  he  is  elected.  We  beg  then  a  candid,  direct  answer  to  these 
questions.  If  they  be  evaded,  we  shall  readily  know  why  it  is; 
and  you,  gentlemen,  will  please  to  remark  it  well. 

Now  my  principle  is  this  :  there  are  certain  rights  which  no  ma- 
jority or  minority  can  give  or  take  away,  or  interfere  with,  except  to 
prevent  men,  in  their  exercise  from  invading  the  rights  of  other  men. 
Of  these,  as  most  important,  I  selected,  as  a  specimen  of  the  rest,  the 
right  of  worship,  which  God  confers  on  every  man  as  a  natural, 
indefeasible  right.  This  right  is  sometimes  called  a  re/i^iows  right; 
but  our  admirable  constitution  justly  regards  it  as  a  civil  right :  that 
is,  though  it  refer  to  religion,  it  is  a  right  belonging  to  man  in  civil 
society.  The  constitution  does  not  confer,  and  no  constitution  can 
take  away  this  right.  It  does  not  except  it ;  but  on  the  contrary 
adopts  it,  declares  it,  and  secures  it,  as  a  civil  right  to  all  American 
citizens  in  the  following  noble  language : — 

*'  All  men  have  a  natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  worship  Al- 
mighty God,  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences. 
No  man  can  of  right  be  compelled  to  attend,  erect,  or  support  any 
place  of  worship,  or  to  m,aintain  any  ministry  against  his  consent; 
no  human  authority  can  in  any  case  whatever,  control  or  interfert 
with  the  rights  of  conscience,  and  no  preference  shall  ever  be  given 
by  law,  to  any  religious  establishment  or  any  modes  of  worship.'''' 
But  at  Rome,  in  Spain,  and  in  every  Roman  Catholic  country  upon 
earth,  this  is  denied  ;  and  even  in  the  Spanish  American  States,  the 
rights  of  conscience  are  trampled  in  the  dust.     The  gentleman  him- 
self also  on  the  first  evening  took  the  same  ground  in  substance, 
when  he  vested  all  rights,  civil  and  religious,  in  the  majority. 
Frightened  by  the  consequences  of  his  own  principles,  he  has  half 
receded  and  half  retains  this  ground,  in  the  last  speech.     It  is  indeed 
a  curious  offspring  of  a  Roman  conscience,  trying  to  speak  Ameri- 
can principles.     He  denies  for  example,  that  the  majority-principle, 
as  he  calls  it,  has  any  thing  "^o  do  with  those  natural  and  impre- 
scriptible rights  which  lie  aback  of  all  conventions."     But  if  the 
right  of  worship  be  secured  to  us  by  the  constitution  as  a  civil  right, 
then  the  majority  principle  has  much  to  do  with  it.     It  has  .  to 
protect  it.     It  would  at  Rome  put  down  the  tyrant  called  the  Pope. 
It  would  in  South  America  put  down  Popery  as  the  established  reli- 
gion.    It  would  not  erect  another  in  its  stead.     It  would  joro/ec^  it, 
while  it  did  not  burn  heretics.     It  would  close  the  inquisition.     It 
would  say  to  Jew,  protestant,  papist,  we  protect  you  all,  while  you 
mind  your  own  business.     In  England,  and  Scotland,  and  Ireland, 
it  would  break  down  the  Episcopal  and  Presbyterian  establishments ; 
and  expelling  the   word  toleration  from  the  earth,  would  put  in 
its  place  protection  to  atlf^^equal  rights  to  all.     So  far,  therefore, 


62 

tne  majority-/)nn«/?/c  "  does  "belong  to  this  cafegory,"  and  so  far  du 
these  rights  which  *'lie  aback  of  all  conventions,"  enter  directly 
into  the  question  of  civil  liberty. 

But  again  :  the  gentleman  says  that  "  the  right  of  the  majority 
to  rule,  is  circumsc'ribed  in  a  free  government  by  the  boundaries  of 
civil  jurisdiction."  True:  but  in  a  government  not  free,  how  is  it? 
What  is  the  gentleman's  view  of  the  rights  of  a  people  having  a 
sovereign  like  the  Pope  ?  What  is  the  governing  poiver  there  ? 
And  what  are  the  rights  of  the  tninority?  Have  they  any  on  the 
gentleman's  principle  but  submission?  And  he  seems  quite  to  for- 
get his  usual  discretion  in  avoiding  the  disclosure  of  his  true  princi- 
ples, when  he  says, — "  In  short,  the  gentleman  might  have  been 
more  concise,  and  told  us  at  once,  that  all  jurisdiction,  both  in  church 
and  state,  is  a  usurpation  on  the  natural  rights  of  man,  save  and  ex- 
cept that  which  is  exercised  by  Congress,  and  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  Presbyterian  Church."  It  is  surely  no  small  throw  at 
our  American  principles  to  speak  just  so  of  the  national  congress ! 
Yet  let  the  gentleman  tell  us  where  entire  freedom,  civil  or  religious, 
is  enjoyed,  **  save  and  except''  in  that  land  which  receives  its  laws 
from  "  Congress.'' 

The  gentleman  seems  strangely  at  a  loss  to  understand  the  mean- 
ing of  ^^  voluntary  slave;"  and  infers  from  my  principle,  that  all 
subjection  to  law  (e.  g.  to  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania)  is  voluntary 
slavery.  Not  so.  But  this  is  the  principle ;— The  papacy,  by 
restraining  liberty  of  conscience,  is  a  system  of  oppression.  Its 
doctrines  are  forced  on  man  (in  Rome  for  example),  on  every  sub- 
ject; and  they  who  reject  them  are  punished  civilly,  and  temporally, 
and  once  were  mortally ;  for  heresy  was  death  by  the  law.  Now 
all  good  Catholics  choose  to  submit.  As  the  church  excludes  froni 
salvation  all  who  reject  her  doctrines,  so  her  true  followers  abandon 
their  rights  of  conscience,  rather  than  expose  themselves  to  her 
wrath  and  damnation.  This  is  voluntary  slavery.  This  too  will 
explain  "  the  article"  (which  the  gentleman  cannot  discover,  though 
it  stares  the  world  in  the  face)  in  the  American  constitution,  in 
which  Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics  cannot  concur.  The 
article  is  *'  that  no  human  authority  can  in  any  case  whatever 
control  or  interfere  vnth  the  rights  of  conscience."  This  is  an 
American,  Protestant,  Bible  principle.  Now  conscientious  papists 
do  not,  and  cannot  believe  this ;  for  they  ascribe  to  the  Pope  the 
right  and  the  power  to  dictate  their  creed,  and  to  enforce  obedience 
to  it ;  and  they  are  voluntary  slaves  by  giving  up  their  rights  of 
conscience ;  and  in  all  Catholic  countries,  they  concur  by  civil  and 
if  necessary  by  military  force,  to  compel  submission  in  others. 
Hence  no  good  Catholic  can  be  a  consistent  American. 

Now  whereas  the  gentleman  thinks,  on  my  view,  the  human 
mind  were  like  the  ass — ^between  two  bundles  of  hay — I  must  own 
that  between  the  gentleman  and  his  incognito  friend  (at  whom  we 
now  and  then  get  a  glimpse,)  the  poor  American  constitution  is  like 


63 

a  bundle  of  hay  between  two  such  animals.  And  then  as  to  all  that 
he  has  said  in  abuse  of  Presbyterians  in  this  and  other  lands  and 
ages,  though  but  about  one  hundredth  part  of  it  is  true,  we  have 
never  hesitated  to  own  that  our  fathers  very  imperfectly  understood 
the  rights  of  conscience.  Our  principles  strike  at  the  root  of  all 
establishments,  every  where,  protestant  as  well  as  papal.  Our 
fathers  learned  to  persecute  from  the  Church  of  Rome ;  but  hap-  ' 
pily  we  are  not  professedly  infallible,  and  therefore  not  unchange- 
able. Popery,  on  her  own  principles,  cannot  change;  but  is  the 
same  poreeeufing  power  now,  and  everywhere  she  can  be,  that  she 
ever  was.  The  question  (whose  terms  however  the  gentleman 
very  little  respects)  limits  his  investigation  *«  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States,  in  connexion  with  the  General  As- 
sembly.'' This  church  has  never  persecuted — no,  7iever  ;  and  so  little 
candour  is  there  in  stating  her  principles,  that  in  quoting  from  her 
standards  only  four  words  the  gentleman  has  transposed  even  a  part 
of  them;  has  put  d.  false  phrase  in,  and  left  the  true  one  out;  as  he 
once  extracted  2l  paragraph  from  another  confession,  and  published 
it  as  ours.  When  we  pass  however  to.  that  form  of  the  question 
which  concerns  the  Presbyterian  Church,  it  will  be  time  enough  to 
begin  her  defence.  In  the  mean  time,  why  does  he  leave  his  own 
unhappy  communion  so  unsheltered ;  and  while  weaving  subtle  dis- 
tinctions to  entangle  the  unwary,  pass  untouched  all  the  difficulties 
of  his  system?  And  even  allowing,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
Presbyterians  do  persecute,  does  ihoX prove  that  Catholics  do  not? 

It  is  needless  to  pursue  the  gentleman  through  his  learned  and 
pointless  definition  of  "  rights  natural,"  "  rights  political,"  "  rights 
divine,"  *'  rights  ecclesiastical." 

We  may  take  an  example  of  his  confusion  of  ideas,  and  see  even 
through  his  ejff^ort  to  conceal  his  principles,  their  anti-American,  and 
(as  we  hold)  anti-Christian  character.  Speaking  of  "  divine  right," 
(a  favourite  term  with  kings  and  Pomish  priests)  he  says,  "  this 
is  the  authority  with  which  God  has  invested  certain  men,  and  con- 
ditions of  life,  for  some  purpose  of  good."  He  then  refers  to  Moses, 
to  the  apostles,  and  their  putative  successors,  viz :  the  priesthood 
of  Pome.  "  These  rights  are  peculiar  to  those  only  to  whom  God 
has  given  them" — "  now  rights  and  duties  are  coirellative" — of 
course  we  are  all  bound  to  obey  the  priesthood  of  Rome.  But  the 
American  constitution  allows  diversity  of  religions ;  and  the  gentle- 
man has  said  "  the  individual  who  would  exempt  himself  from  the 
discharge  of  either  social  or  ecclesiastical  duties  as  established  in 
THE  state  by  lawful  authority,  or  in  the  religious  body  of  which 
he  is  a  member,  by  an  appeal  to  his  pretended  natural  rights, 
would  justly  be  regarded  as  unworthy  to  participate  in  the  advan- 
tages of  either.''''  These  things  united  give  a  stronger  squinting  at 
the  rights  of  Romanism  than  might  have  been  expected  from  so 
wary  a  disputant  in  North  America.  This  is  the  germ  of  the 
canon-law — that  vilest,  shrewdest  of  all  human  tricks, — to  mingle 


64 

things  temporal  with  things  spiritual;  to  enthrone  kings  on  the 
necks  of  tlie  people,  by  divine  right;  and,  by  still  a  divinci  right j 
the  priesthood  on  the  necks  of  the  kings.  He  says  divine  rights 
*♦  are  not  natural.^''  Nor,  says  he,  "  can  they  be  derived  from 
civil  authority.''^  What  are  ihey?  Our  constitution  m?i^es  rights 
of  conscience  a  part  of  the  civil  rights  of  every  man,  and  guards 
Jew,  and  Christian,  and  Gentile,  and  Mahomedan  equally,  in  their 
proper  exercise.  But  it  owns  no  peculiar  divine  rights,  claimed 
exclusively  by  the  Pope,  and  "  to  which  duties  are  correllalive.^^ 
We  reject  the  canon-law.  Whatever  God  in  his  bloeecd  levelatiort 
has  made  known  to  man,  enters  under  the  broad  banner  of  the  rights 
of  conscience;  and  it  is  no  contradiction  of  natural  right,  or  depar- 
ture from  it,  to  receive  it  and  exercise  it  as  divided  between  a  minis- 
try of  persuasion,  and  a  laity  voluntarily  associated  to  be  in- 
structed and  directed  in  certain  duties,  without  the  surrender  of 
any  original  right.  But  how  different  this  from  papal  domination, 
and  papal  doctrine  about  the  Pope,  and  priesthood,  and  confession, 
and  the  rule  of  faitli^  &c.  &;c.  &lc. 

But  we  will  meet  the  gentleman's  wish  for  a  more  specific  exami- 
nation  of  civil  liberty.     The  definition  adopted  by  us  is  this,  viz. 

"  The  absolute  rights  of  an  individual  restrained  only  for  the 
preservation  of  order  in  society.^'' 

"  Absolute'" — not  in  respect  to  the  Creator.  As  it  respects  Him, 
all  human  rights  are  precarious  and  dependant.  He  may  take  away 
life,  liberty,  and  happiness.  "  In  him  we  live  and  move  and  have 
our  being,"  is  the  language  of  a  heathen,  but  adopted  and  com- 
mended by  an  inspired  apostle.  In  respect  therefore  to  God,  the 
absolute  rights  of  an  individual  can  mean  no  more  than  his  natural 
rights.  But  these  rights  may  be  called  absolute  in  respect  of  the 
laws  of  men.  They  are  absolute  in  essence  so  far  as  they  are  inde- 
feasible. And  they  are  absolute  in  fact  so  far  as  they  are  not 
divested  by  the  just  powers  of  government. 

K^  Restrained.''^  The  Declaration  of  the  American  Independence 
will  show  us  in  what  sense  restraint  is  lawful. 

The  second  paragraph  of  that  instrument  reads  thus : — "  We  hold 
these  truths  to  be  self-evident — that  all  men  are  created  equal;  that 
they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights; 
that  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness;  that 
to  secure  these  rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men, 
deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed." 

From  this  it  appears,  that  the  end  of  government  is  to  secure  to 
individuals  the  enjoyment  of  their  inalienable  rights,  and  that  the 
foundation  of  all  just  government  rests  upon  the  consent  of  the 
governed;  and  therefore  if  our  definition  is  just,  the  restraint 
intended  must  be  self-imposed,  or  such  as  rests  upon  consent  freely 
given. 

"  Order  in  society.''''  This  phrase  cannot  be  intended  to  apply 
to  the  actual  forms  of  government,  if  the  preceding  remarks  are 


65 

just;  for  if  we  should  so  understand  it,  civil  liberty  would  be  a 
variable  quantity,  ranging  between  the  extremes  of  a  pure  demo- 
cracy and  an  absolute  despotism.  In  the  United  States  it  would  be 
one  thing — in  England  another — in  France  another;  in  Austria 
another — in  Russia  another — in  Italy  another — alia  Romx — cilia 
Jithenis:  yet  this  is  the  very  ground  that  the  gentleman  has  already 
taken.  It  would  be  any  thing  or  nothing.  Civil  liberty  therefore 
is  not  the  residuum  of  freedom,  after  making  such  deducti(^ns  or 
subtractions  from  the  absolute  or  natural  rights  of  man  as  are  neces- 
sary to  preserve  the  particular  order  established  in  the  country 
where  he  happens  to  be,  or  to  be  bora;  but  it  is  the  residuum  of 
freedom,  after  making  swc/i  deductions  only  from  his  natural  rights, 
as  the  social  condition,  i-'i  z7.s  best  form,  requires.  These  deduc- 
tions are  few,  and  consequently  the  residuum  is  large — such  at  least 
were  the  views  of  the  signers  of  tho  Declaration  of  Independence ; 
such  cannot  be  the  gentleman's.  They  declared  that  the  object  of 
the  institution  of  government  is  to  preserve  tiie  inalienable  rights  of 
individuals,  comprising  in  this  class  life,  liberty,,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness.  But  we  are  not  left  to  inferences— they  declared  in  ex- 
press terms,  that  when  any  form  of  government  becomes  destructive 
of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  and  abolish  it. 
If  this  sentiment  be  just,  it  puis  an  end  to  the  doctrine  of  legitimacy 
and  the  divine  right  of  kings;  and  it  shows  that  civil  liberty  is  much 
more  than  that  miserable  pittance  of  freedom,  which  the  established 
order  of  society  throughout  the  whole,  or  almost  the  whole  of 
Europe,  allows.  It  proves  the  right  of  expatriation,  notwithstand- 
ing the  claims  and  pretended  rights  of  monarchs,  to  the  persons  .of 
their  subjects;  it  proves  the  right  of  revolution — the  instrument 
itself  is  professedly  a  revolutionary  paper,  and  justifies  that  a$  a 
right,  which  legitimacy  denominates  rebellion  and  treason;  and 
we  should  like  to  know  whether  the  gentleman  thinks  our  revolu- 
tion was  rebellion,  our  resistance,  treason?  Tiie  instrument  asserts 
that  the  people  are  the  source  of  all  just  government — that  the  right- 
ful continuance  of  it  in  any  form  depends  upon  their  will — that  they 
have  the  right  "  to  alter  or  abolish  it,  and  institute  a  new  govern- 
ment, laying  its  foundation  on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its 
powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect 
their  safety  and  happiness."  It  is  evident  therefore  that  by  order 
in  society,  cannot  be  intended  the  established  order,  unless  civil 
liberty  may  consist  with  acts  of  despotism ;  for  such  acts  are  co)i- 
sistent  with  the  order  of  society  in  despotic  states ;  and  they  may 
be  necessary  to  maintam  the  established  order  of  society  in  such 
states.  The  tenants  of  the  Bastile  and  of  the  Inquisition  may  have 
suffered  according  to  laiv — the  law  of  the  state  to  which  it  was  then- 
misfortune  to  belong.  Indulgence  to  the  full  measure  of  the  natural 
lights  of  man,  only  duly  restrained,  might  often  result  in  a  dethrone- 
ment and  a  revolution.  The  laws  of  England  would  have  con- 
demned Washington  and  Hancock  and  their  associates  to  the  gal- 

9 


66 

lows,  and  the  Prince  of  Orange  would  doubtless  have  suffered  a- 
similar  fate  from  the  hands  of  Philip  11.  .  1 1 

And  if  such  a  fatality  had  befallen  the  cause  of  liberty,  it  would 
have   contributed    no   doubt   to  preserve   the    established  order   of 
society.     But    the   right   to  punish    such   men   for  disturbing   the 
established  order  of  society,  is  no  better  or  greater  than  the  right  of 
the  robber  to  murder  or  imprison  his  victims  for  the  preservatioji 
of  his  plunder.     No  r  in  arbitrary  governments"  (by  which  I  mean 
all  governments  not  founded  and  dependant  for  their  eonlinnance  on- 
the  consent  of  the  governed,)  the  original  wrong  is  the  usurpation, 
and  that  cannot  be  rightfully   defended.     Despots,   like    Zaccheus 
the  publican,  ought  to  make  res timtion  of  their  extonions.     If  they 
refuse  to  do  it,  their  suffering  subjects  have  a  right  to  compel  it. 
If  they  attempt  it  without  success,  the  event  proves  nothing  as  to- 
the  right,  but  only  the  comparative  forces  it  only  shows  that  fetters 
may  be  forged  which  are  too  strong  for  the  victim.     These  are  the 
principles  of  ihe  American  governments.     They  are  too  repugnant 
to  the  ideas  of  order  in  society,  as  defined  by  legitimacy,  to  be 
popular  at  St.  Petersburg,  Vienna,  Madrid  and  Rome.     They  indi- 
cate also  a  reason  for  the  preference  entertained  by  the  Holy  Alliance 
for  Louis  XVIII.  over  Napoleon;  although,  in  truth,  the  claims  of 
Napoleon  were  at  least  as  well  founded  as  those  of  the  head  of  the 
Bourbon  race..    They  also  show  a  reason  for  the  concern  which  the 
advocates  of  legitimacy  manifest  for  the  diffusion  of  European  no- 
tions of  ordiBT  in  society;   and  their  deadly  opposition  at  Rome,  at 
Vienna,  at  St.  Petersburg  and  Madrid  to  the  diffusion  of  American 
principles. 

Now  if  the  gentleman  will  apply  these  principles  to  that  strange 
mixture   of  vulgarisms,   affected  American   principles,  and  Popish* 
enmity  to  human  freedom,  which,   in  verbose  confusion,  undulate  , 
through  his  reply,  he  will  find  it  possibly  no  easy  matter  to  escape 
&'om  their  application. 

But  it  is  time  for  us  to  pass  to  a  brief  review  of  the  gentleman's 
reply  to  my  specifications  against  "  the  principles  or  doctrines"  of 
Romanism. 

I.  As  TO  Baptism — beginning  as  it  does,  with  the  beginning  of 
life — I  asserted  and  brought  proof  that  the  doctrine  of  Popery  on  this 
point  was  destructive  of  liberty.  The  gentleman  denies  it.  The 
passage  to  which  I  especially  referred,  was  the  fourteenth  canon  of 
the  Council  of  Trent  on  this  sacrament.  As  the  gentleman  has- not 
answered  the  argument  already  presented,  we  need  not  dwell  here. 
The  word  in  the  original  is  cogendos.  Now  we  assert,  that  the 
plain,  obvious,  and  common  meanhig  of  this  word,  is  the  application 
of  force,  not  implying  choice,  or  leaving  an  alternative.  Ainsworth 
gives  for  the  first  meaning  of  the  word  "  to  be  forced,''^  and  in  the 
common  use  of  the  term  among  classical  authors,  this  is  the  idea 
where  it  is  applied  to  this  or  kindred  subjects  ;  e.  g.  Cicero,  cogen-^ 
dus  e&t  avnus — "  to  be  forced  by  armsJ"     And  then  the  GO^nexioii' 


67  ' 

of  this  word  as  used  by  the  council.     It  anathematizes  those  who 
say  "  that  when  these  baptized  children  grow  up  they  are  to  he  asked 

whether  they  will  confirm  the  promises,"  &c.  &;c. <*  and  that 

'.f  they  say  thoy  will  not,  are  to  be  left  to  their  oion  choice,''''  &c 
Here  the  freedom  of  will  is  forced — it  is  slaver}^  downright.  Now 
the  Presbyterian  church  does  not  at  all  proceed  as  the  gentleman 
supposes,  with  baptized  children.  It  is  wholly  a  false  and  gratuitous 
statement.  But  when  we  do  discipline  adult  members,  they  are 
visited  only  with  spiritual  punishments,  such  as  suspension,  excom- 
munication. There  we  stop..  Not  so  in  the  Catholic  church.  Where 
;they  can,  and  d-are,  as  at  Rome,  '*  they  are  not  left  to  their  own 
choice,'''' — no,  but  *'  aie  to  be  compelled  to  lead  a  Christian  life,  by 
other  punishment  than  exclusion  from  the  sacraments  f  T-his  is 
very  plain  to  a  candid  mind.  And  why  is  the  gentleman  so  cauti- 
•ously  silent  about  the  practice  of  the  church  ;  go  to  those  ivho  have 
/e/if  this  church  !  go  to  the  history  of  this  system,  and  this,  better 
than  a  criticism  on  words,  by  the  comment  of  facts,  will  confirm  mf 
•construction,  and  seal  my  proof. 

II.  On  the  head  of  auricular  confession,  the  genfleman  is  so  feeble, 
•though  so  verbose,  that  I  think  really  he  has  shown  what  he  cannot 
do,  and  left  little  need  of  reply.  The  question  now  is  not  on  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine,  but  its  tyranny.  He  adduces  Christ's  com- 
mission to  his  Apostles,  and  assuming  that  Romish  priests  are  their 
successors,  and  owning  that  auricular  confession  was  the  invention 
of  his  church,  yet  infers  the  propriety  of  it,  from  the  failure  of 
proving  it.  Now  who  made  any  man,  and  above  all  a  Roman  priest, 
*' judge"  of  sins,  and  lord  of  conscience  !  Is  it  not  anti-Christian 
tyranny  to  say  as  the  catechism  of  this  council  does,  "  that  the  priests 
hold  the  place,  and  power,  and  authority  of  God  ox  earth  T'^  Is 
•it  not  blasphemy,  and  unbounded  oppression  ?  Is  it  not  sctying^ 
through  me  you  pass  to  heaven,  or  without  ine  to  hell?  In  vain  does 
the  gentleman  quibble  and  explain.  '■''Judges,''^  and  of  men's  sins  and 
consciences,  and  in  Christ's  stead,  and  in  the  exercise  of  \us  power ! 
He  charges  me  with  misunderstanding  his  doctrine.  Zs  itnot  written 
near  at  hand — ^^  pcenam  quam  opportet  pro  illis  poenitentibus  hn- 
ponere?''  i.  e.  "  the  punishment  which  ought  tJ  h^  inflicted  on  the 
penitent;""  which  a  Jesuit  would  soften  into  ''penance  enjoined,'*'' 
As  to  the  translation  of  which  he  last  compl^i^ed,  I  followed  the 
faithful  Cramp,  and  the  gentleman  well  Ap^^^s  it:  he  also  knows 
that  the  more  literal  translation  is  even  worse  for  his  suflering  cause; 
and  that  the  sense  is  not  varied  bv  the  expletive  term  which  the 
translator  has  employed,  as  will  be;  s^en  by  reference  to  the  original. 

The  syllogisms  of  the  gentlcinp-*  are  so  profoundly  absurd,  I  see 
-not  their  bottom  or  intent;  but  iil^e  circumvallations  of  wm^  they 
must  be  left  asproof  against -^ll  logic,  and  a  terror  to  all  "  clean  and 
goodly  armsy 

When  he  argues  so  profoundly,  "  If  God  has  appointed  the  sacra- 
jnent  of  pcaiance;"— //^He  has  imparted  to  his  ministers  the  power^ 


&c.;  *♦  //  confession  be  a  condition,''  Sic;   "  If,''   &lc.  &;c.     And 
wliat  if.' 

"  Said  Paddy  with  a  hop. 
If  I  had  a  horse,  hovv'd  yc  sw«yj  .?" 

Pardon  my  poetic  impulse,  gentlemen.  1  feel  inspired  by  this 
battalion  oiifs;  by  argument  without  reasoning;  and  triumphs 
without  the  toils  of  ratiocination. 

The  practical  eficct  of  the  doctrine  of  confession  has  been  to  make 
the  priesthood  the  most  corrupt  of  all  men,  and  to  put  all  men,  all 
kings,  all  power,  of  all  who  confessed  to  them,  at  their  disposal. 
Can  such  elTects  flow  from  divhu  doctrine  ?  Are  such  demands  coqi- 
patible  with  human  rights? 

III.  In  reply  to  my  argument  so  largely  dwelt  on,  concerning  the 
freedom  of  the  press,  of  reading,  &c.,  the  gentleman  says:  ''Now 
the  freedom  of  the  press  is  as  much  a  doctrine  of  the  church  as 
Symmes's  Theory  of  the  Poles.  Hence  the  objection  on  this  ground 
has  no  force."     This  is  surely  an  ominous  confession  !     Do  her 
doctrines  assert  no  liberty  of  thought  ?    Do  hei  Scriptures  enjoin  no 
inquiry  after  the  will,  and  into  the  word  of  God  ?     Has  she  not  for- 
bidden, in  the  manifold  citations  just  given  by  me  from  councils  and 
popes,  the  free  printing  and  reading  of  books  in  general,  and  espe- 
cially of  God'^  holy  word?     Does  her  system  hold  no  doctrine 
which  would  forbid  such  tyranny  on  the  soul,  and  such  daring  re- 
straint on  the  Bible  ?  Then  does  not  that  omission  ruin  her  system  ? 
Or  will  the  gentleman  tell  me  it  is  only  discipline?     Then  can  that 
church  regard  the  rights  of  God  or  man,  which  will  tolerate,  nay, 
which  will  enact  and  enforce,  such  discipline?  and  with  such  temporal 
and  spiritual   pains  and  penalties  ?  —  Impossible  !     The  gentleman 
says  that  '■''forty  editions  of  the   Scripture  were  published  in  the 
Italian  language,  before  the  year  1562  !"  Admitting  it  true,  (which 
however  is  not,)   and  what  then  ?     Does  this   disprove  what  the 
Lateral!  and  Tt^nt  councils  did,  and  what  a  host  of  popes  did  against 
the  printing,  auA  reading,  and  circulating   the   Bible,  and  of  other 
books?     bibles  veto  printed  —  therefore  the  popes  and  councils  did 
not  oppose  reading  f^ein !     But,  sir,  here  are  decrees  of  councils, 
and  bulls  of  popes  !  I^o  matter !  forty  editions  of  Bibles  were  printed 
m  Italy  before  1562 !     But,  sir,  the  decrees  forbade  any  to  print  or 
read  ivithout  the  Pope's  li<^.eme!     Had  the  church  a  right  to  make 
such  decrees  ?     Oh  they  wer^  (>„iy  discipline!    Then  you  own  that 
the  discipline  was  wrong,  and  icptessed  freedom;  and  that  no  doc- 
trine of  your  churcli   forbids  su^ai   discipline?     No!  doctrine  has 
nothing  to  do  with  it.     But  what  is  ^ocirine  ?  will  you  please  give 
me  an  infallible  defnilion  of  doctrine?  \  find,  when  you  speak  of  the 
Presbyterians  of  Scotland  as  punishing  t^se  who  read  the  prayer 
book,  you  consider  it  doctrine.     How  are  similar  things  in  your 
church  only  discipline  ?     How  is  it  so  wrong  for  Scotch  Presbyte- 


69 

rians,  (as  it  was  I  think  very  wrong,)  to  hold  such  a  principle  as  to 
restrain  free  inquiry,  and  yet  is  no  error  in  the  Church  of  Rome  to 
do  infinitely  more,  and  greatly  worse  things,. wne/er  the  same  prin- 
ciple ? 

The  gentleman  says  the  "  object  of  all  such  regulations^  inade  in 
regard  to  printing,  publishing,  and  reading  of  books,  was  to  pre- 
serve the  Church  of  Christ  from  the  admixture  of  errors,^"*  &c.  I 
know  it;  so  Christ  told  his  disciples  the  object  some  men  would 
have  in  view  in  putting  them  to  death,  would  be  '*  to  do  God  ser- 
vice.^'' But  was  it  right?  The  gentleman  then  owns  "  that  the  end 
justifies  the  memisF"  Was  it  compatible  with  the  civil  and  religi- 
ous rights  of  Roman  Catholics  to  pass  such  regulations  ?  Were  they 
not  ^^  voluntary  slaves^''  to  submit  to  it?  Did  they  submit  willingly? 
Were  they  not  forced? 

Again.  He  says,  "  The  church,  as  the  depository  of  the  true 
doctrines,  has  a  right  to  condemn  and  exclude,  by  the  exercise  of 
spiritual  authority,  all  heretical  and  impious  books — those  of  Cal- 
vin as  well  as  those  of  Voltaire."  Ah  !  "  a  right  to  exclude  P^  This 
is  a  full  admission  of  the  whole  thing  in  debate.  Here  we  might 
end  the  question,  for  we  know  what  "  spiritual  authority"  means 
in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

The  gentleman  still  further  says,  "  Whenever  this  right  has  been 
maintained  by  temporal  penalties,  the  penalties  have  been  for  the 
violation  of  the  laws  of  the  state." 

That  is,  the  Church  of  Rome  can  so  unite  with  despotic  states, 
as  to  permit  and  encourage  such  states  to  enforce  her  spiritual 
laws  with  temporal  pains  and  penalties.  The  church  makes  laws 
for  he<;  subjects:  and  then,  "whenever"  she  can,  she  influences  the 
state  to  enforce  them.  Now  at  Rome  the  temporal  and  spiritual 
power  are  united  in  the  same  sovereign  head — the  Pope. 

Query.  When  he,  as  prince,  by  civil  penalties,  and  military  power, 
if  need  be,  enforces  the  laws,  or,  as  the  gentleman  is  pleased  to  call 
Ihem,  "regulations,"  against  the  freedom  of  the  press,  does  not  the 
church,  in  him,  exercise  temporal  power  to  enforce  "the  spiritual?'''' 
I  beg  for  a  direct  answer.  Is  it  not  tyranny  ?  and  do  not  the  general 
councils  sanction  it?  Has  the  church  ever  forbidden  it?  Has  she  not 
legislated  on  it,  with  command  to  enforce  the  oppression  ?  Will  the 
gentleman  deny  it  ?  If  the  Pope  were  here,  with  like  power,  would 
he  respect  our  rights,  when  he  does  as  we  have  seen  in  Italy?  Are 
our  rights  of  one  sort,  and  those  of  Rome  of  another  ?  What  makes 
the  difference?  If  no  difference,  is  it  not  clear  that  the  church,  by 
her  acts,  and  this  her  head,  "  whenever  she  can,''''  opposes  the  civil 
and  religious  rights  of  man.  But,  says  the  gentleman,  printing  is 
like  "  the  use  of  gunpowder,  or  of  steam-navigation — an  acquired 
right.''''  Then  of  course,  according  to  his  own  principles,  "  the 
majority-principle"  may  alienate  it !  He  says,  "  it  is  as  natural 
and  unalienable  a  right,  not  to  circulate  the  Bible,  as  to  circulate  it.'^ 
True,  I  have  a  right  to  do  it,  or  to  omit  it.     But  have  the  Pope  and 


70 

general  councils  a  right  to  ''forbid  me  to  do  it,'"  if  I  please  to  do  it? 
Or,  have  they  a  right  to  forbid  me  "steam-navigation,"  as  they  once 
did  forbid  all  Europe  to  furnish  the  Saracens  with  ships,  arms,  <fcc., 
&c.  The  gendeman  jnore  than  hints  that  they  have!  And,  worst 
of  all,  the  gentleman  calls  the  tyrannic  acts  of  the  present  Pope 
against  the  press,  ''  a  praiseworthy  solicitude.''  He  says,  "  The 
Pope  asserts  that  those  ivho  recognize  the  spiritual  authority  of  the 
church,  ARE  WICKED  IN  DENYING  HIS  RIGHT  to  cxcrcise  ccnsorshlp 
over  the  press.''  *  *  *  "  He  has  a  right  to  do  all  this — he  is 
BOUND  to  do  it,"  &c.  Here  he  admits  then,  that  the  Pope  has  a  right, 
and  is  bound  to  restrain  the  liberty  of  all  Catholics  ;  and  all  men 
ought  to  be  Catholics.  Is  not  this  slavery  ?  Is  not  this  conceding 
fully  the  point  in  debate  ?  Is  not  this  surrendering  a  part  of  their 
liberty  ?  And  then  can  a  good  Catholic  be  a  consistent  American 
citizen?  But  the  gentleman  goes  still  further:  "But  it  does  not 
follow  that  he  (the  Pope)  has  any  right,  or  temporal  authority,  to 
punish,  by  civil  disabilities,  those  who  are  not  subject  to  the  civil 
laws  of  his  own  state,  for  the  violation  of  those  principles .'"  His 
own  state!  Who  made  him  a  ruler?  A  few  cardinals!  Not  the 
people !  Who  passed  "  the  civil  laws  of  his  state"  against  the  free- 
dom of  the  press  ?  General  councils  of  the  church !  and  popes  elected 
by  cardinals,  who  were  created  by  popes  !  Yet  the  gentleman  owns 
that  the  Pope,  the  head  of  the  church,  "  does  enforce^  by  civil  dis- 
abilities," the  laws  against  a  free  press,  "  in  his  own  state."  What 
if  a  papal  majority  should  make  France  or  America  a  part  of  "his 
state,"  will  he  not  "  have  a  right,"  and  "  be  bound"  to  enforce  the 
same  laws  ?  And  the  gentleman  ventures  so  far  as  to  say,  speaking 
of  himself,  "  The  '  Pope'  and  the  '  priest'  do  not  differ  !"  In 
this  confession,  he  yields  up  the  question;  finally,  exposes  his  inde- 
fensible principles,  and  insults  the  feelings  of  his  injured  country. 
As  to  the  index,  whose  testimony  he  questions,  here  is  the  book,  and 
here  the  very  words.  It  was  printed  at  Rome,  too !  and  forbids  the 
reading  in  the  vulgar  tongue  of  the  Catholic  Bible,  no  matter  in 
what  idiom!  How  much,  pray,  were  the  forty  editions  of  Italian 
Bibles  worth  to  an  oppressed  and  benighted  people  ? 

IV.  I  next  proceed  to  show  from  various  decrees  of  professedly 
infallible  councils  embodying  principles  on  all  the  leading  relations 
of  man,  "  as  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,"  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  opposed  in  many  of  her  doctrines  to  civil  and 
religious  liberty. 

And  first,  from  the  Fourth  General  Council  of  Lateran  held  at 
Rome,  A.  D.  1215,  ynder  Pope  Innocent  III. — Present  2  patriarchs; 
70  metropolitans;  400  bishops;  812  abbots,  priors,  &;c.  with  impe- 
rial ambassadors,  strumpets,  &c.  &;c. 

We  give  entire  the  whole  of  the  third  cViapter.  Concerning 
Heretics. — We  have  the  original  on  the  table,  and  it  may  be  re- 
ferred to  by  the  gentleman  if  he  has  any  doubt  of  the  justness  of  the 
translation — which  we  endeavour  to  make  very  accurate. 


71 

*'  We  excommunicate  and  anathematize  every  heresy  extolling 
itself  against  this  holy,  orthodox,  catholic  faith,  which  we  before 
expounded,  condemning  all  heretics,  by  what9oever-  names  called, 
having  indeed  different  faces,  but  having  their  tails  bound  together 
by  a  common  agreement  in  falsehood,  one  with  another.  And  being 
condemned,  let  them  be  left  to  the  secular  powers  present,  or  to  their 
bailiffs,  to  be  punished  with  due  animadversion  ;  if  clergymen,  let 
them  be  first  degraded  from  their  orders,  so  that  the  goods  of  per- 
sons thus  condemned,  if  of  the  laity  may  be  confiscated  ;  if  of  the 
clergy,  they  may  be  devoted  to  the  churches  from  which  they  have 
received  their  stipends.  But  if  any  shall  be  found,  who  are  notable 
by  suspicion  alone,  let  them  be  stricken  with  the  sword  of  anathema, 
and  shunned  by  all,  until  they  have  rendered  full  satisfaction ;  unless 
they  shall  have  proved  their  innocence  by  a  clearing  of  themselves, 
suitable  to  the  degree  of  suspicion  and  the  quality  of  the  person  ;  but 
if  they  continue  under  excommunication  for  a  year,  they  shall  after 
that  be  condemned  as  heretics.  And  let  the  secular  powers  be 
warned  and  induced,  and  if  need  be,  condemned  by  ecclesiastical  cen- 
sure, what  offices  soever  they  are  in ;  that  as  they  desire  to  be  re- 
puted and  taken  for  believers,  so  they  publicly  take  an  oath  for  the 
defence  of  the  faith,  that  they  will  study  in  good  earnest  to  exter- 
minate to  their  utmost  power,  from  the  lands  subject  to  their  juris- 
diction, all  heretics  devoted  by  the  church;  so  that  every  one  that  is 
henceforth  taken  into  any  power,  either  spiritual  or  temporal,  shall 
be  bound  to  confirm  this  chapter  by  his  oath.  But  if  the  temporal 
lord,  required  and  warned  by  the  church,  shall  neglect  to  purge  his 
territory  of  this  .heretical  filth,  let  him  by  the  metropolitan  and  com- 
provincial bishops  be  tied  by  the  bond  of  exco;nmunication  ;  and  if 
he  scorn  to  satisfy  within  a  year,  let  that  be  signified  to  the  Pope, 
that  he  may  denounce  his  vassals  thenceforth  absolved  from  his 
fidelity,  [allegiance  to  him,]  and  may  expose  his  country  to  be 
seized  by  Catholics,  who,  exterminating  the  heretics,  may  possess  it 
without  any  contradiction,  and  may  keep  it  in  the  purity  of  the 
faith ;  saving  the  right  of  the  principal  lord,  so  be  it  he  himself  put 
no  obstacle  thereto,  nor  oppose  any  impediment ;  the  same  law 
notwithstanding  being  kept  about  them  that  have  no  principal  lords. 
■**  And  the  Catholics  that  taking  the  badge  of  the  cross,  shall  gird 
themselves  fbt  the  extermination  of  heretics,  shall  enjoy  that  indul- 
gence and  be  fortified  with  that  holy  privilege,  which  is  granted  to 
them  that  go  to  th«  help  of  the  Holy  Land. 

"  And  we  decree  to  subject  to  excommunication  the  believers  and 
receivers,  defenders  and  favourers  of  heretics,  firmly  ordaining  that 
whenever  such  person  is  noted  by  excommunication,  if  he  disdain  to 
satisfy  wiihin  a  year,  let  Kim  be  ipso  jure  made  infamous  ;  nor  let 
him  be  admitted  to  public  offices  or  councils,  nor  to  aid  in  electing 
such,  nor  to  bear  testimony.  Let  him  also  be  intestate,  so  that  he 
shall  neither  have  free  power  to  bequeath  or  inherit.  Besides — no 
one  shall  be  required  to  answer  him  about  any  business — but  he 


72 

shall  answer  all  others.  If  he  be  a  judge,  his  sentence  shall  be  null ; 
nor  shall  any  causes  be  brought  for  a  hearing  before  him.  If  an 
advocate,  he  shall  not  be  permitted  to  plead.  If  a  public  register, 
his  instruments  shall  have  no  force,  but  be  condemned  v^^ith  their 
condemned  author.  And  we  command  the  Tike  to  be  observed  in 
like  cases.  But  if  he  be  a  clergyman,  he  shall  be  deposed  from  all 
office  and  benefice ;  because  the  greater  the  offence  the  heavier 
should  be  the  punishment,  (vindicta.)  But  if  any  persons  shall  con- 
temptuously refuse  to  shun  those  whom  the  chui-ch  has  devoted, 
(as  heretics,)  let  them  be  smitten  with  the  sentence  of  excommuni- 
cation, until  they  Jiave  made  full  satisfaction.  Moreover,  let  not 
clergymen  administer  to  such  pestilent  persons  the  sacraments  of  the 
church  ;  nor  let  them  presume  to  bestow  on  them  Christian  burial  -y 
nor  to  accept  their  alms  or  offerings  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  let  them 
be  deprived  of  their  office,  and  not  restored  without  a  special  grant 
from  the  Holy  See.  In  like  manner  all  regulars,  on  whom  the  same 
shall  be  inflicted,  shall  lose  their  privileges  in  that  diocese  in  which 
they  have  committed  said  excesses. 

"  And  because  some,  under  '  the  form  of  godliness,  but  denying 
its  power, ^  as  the  apostle  saith,  have  assumed  the  authority  to 
preach,  although  the  same  apostle  saith,  '  How  shall  they  preach 
except  they  be  sent.''  Therefore,  let  all  who  presume  to  preach 
without  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See,  or  of  a  Catholic  bishop,  either 
publicly  or  privately,  be  bound  with  the  chain  of  excommunication  ; 
and  unless  they  quickly  repent,  let  them  be  visited  with  other  con- 
dign punishment. 

**  We  enjoin,  in  addition,  that  every  archbishop  and  bishop,  either 
in  person,  by  his  archdeacon,  or  by  fit  and  honest  persons,  shall 
twice,  or  at  least  once  a  year,  make  the  circuit  of  any  parish  in 
which  heresy  is  reported  to  exist,  and  there  compel  three  or  more 
men  of  good  report,  or  if  it  is  thought  expedient  the  whole  neigh- 
bourhood, to  swear  that  if  any  one  shall  thereafter  know  of  any 
heretics  therein,  or  any  holding  secret  conventicles,  or  any  differing 
in  life  and  morals  from  the  conversation  of  the  faithful,  that  he  shall 
studiously  point  them  out  to  the  bishop.  And  the  bishop  shall  call 
the  accused  to  his  presence,  and  the  accused  shall  be  canonically 
punished,  unless  they  do  clear  themselves  from  the  suspected  guilt ; 
if  after  a  show  of  being  cleared,  they  relapse  into  their  former  per- 
fidy, or  if  any  such  despising  the  sacredness  of  an  oath,  shall  with 
damnable  heresy  refuse  to  swear,  let  them  for  that  thing  be  reputed 
heretics." 

Such  is  the  "  Magna  Charta"  o^  Papal  rights — the  great  infallible 
Black  Letter  Commentary  on  the  power  of  the  priesthood — the 
germ  of  the  inquisition — the  tender  mercies  of  the  only  true  church, 
out  of  which  there  is  no  salvation,  in  which  there  is  no  liberty.  In 
vain  did  Draco  write  his  laws  in  blood — or  Heathen  Rome  legislate 
against  Christians.  This  is  the  masterpiece  of  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral despotism.    But,  as  I  need  some  respite,  I  reserve  my  analysis 


73 

isnd  comments  for  the  last  hour  of  the  evening.  We  shall  now  be 
anteitained  by  the  gentleman's  skill  in  showing  that  there  is  not  a 
word  of  doctrine  in  it ;  and  if  men  were  destroyed  in  millions  by  the 
disciple  of  the  church,  why,  that  was  not  to  be  charged  upon  her 
principles ;  for  she  never  touched  a  heretic — she  only  handed  them: 
over  to  the  civil  power — that  did  the  business. 

Her  doctrines  are  those  of  perfect  freedom  !  And  as  for  the  here- 
tics, they  deserved  to  die ;  and  if  discipline  put  them  out  of  the  way, 
the  world  was  well  rid,  while  doctrine  is  still  full  oi  love  and  full 
of  liberty  to  man. 

"  Jesuitism,"  says  De  Pratt,  "  embarrasses  itself  very  little  vjith 
the  means — scruples  are  trifles.  This  is  what  Mirabeau  called  la 
grande  morale;  leaving  what  he  disdainfully  termed  la  petite  mo- 
rale to  the  commonalty."  The  church  killed  millions  by  discipline j 
leaving  doctrine  reposing  in  the  higher  parts  of  the  system.  See 
now,  how  skilfully  her  chosen  son  will  exemplify  the  tactics  of  his 
school  and  the  ethics  of  Rome  in  explaining  away  this  tremendous 
decree. 


10 


74 


"/$:  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion^  in  any  or  in  ail  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  ojjposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  7^^ 


NEGATIVE  II.— MR.  HUGHES. 

Mr.  President, — I  am  glad  that,  in  demanding  the  name  of  the 
writer  in  the  Diary,  the  gentleman's  object  is  not  to  inflict  "per- 
sonal chastigement."  If  the  name  could  be  of  any  use  to  him, 
for  any  other  purpose,  I  should  have  no  hesitation  in  making  him 
acquainted  with  it.  His  memory  seems  to  be  sore  in  relation  to 
the  subject,  and  I  really  cannot  imagine  why.  He  considers 
himself  as  having  tViumphed  over  me  on  that  occasion,  and  why 
does  he  repine  ?  The  writer  in  the  Diary  spoke  of  him,  in  terms 
of  great  respect,  called  him  a  gentleman,  &c.  but  he  has  just  disf 
covered  that  the  writer  was  "ironical"  throughout.  The  gentle- 
man's manner  of  referring  to  this,  will  have  the  effect  to  make  per- 
sons doubt  the  solidity  of  his  own  convictions  on  the  subject. 
For  if  he  can  prove  it  to  be  a  libel,  (which  it  is  not,)  an  assault 
on  him,  (which  it  is  not,)  then  people  will  say,  "why  does  he 
not  do  so?"  "  Why  does  he  pretend  that  the  name  of  the  author 
is  necessary,  when  every  one  of  common  sense  sees  that  it  has 
no  more  to  do  with  the  statements,  than  the  size  of  the  town 
clock !" 

As  to  the  society's  acting  on  it,  it  was  for  them  to  do  so,  not 
in  the  hour  of  discussion,  but  afterwards,  when  they  are  on  busi- 
ness. Let  them  treat  its  statements  as  they  did  those  of  the  Pres- 
byterian,— point  out  and  s^ec\fy  i\\e  falsehoods ;  if  they  do  not 
this,  the  legitimate  inference  is  that  there  are  none.  The  gentle- 
man might  be  consoled  for  the  "fulsome  compliments"  that  are 
paid  to  me  by  the  discovery  of  which  he  is  the  author,  that  the 
writer  spoke  "ironically."  But  all  will  not  do — lateri  hseret 
arundo. 

The  sweet  contemplation  of  the  laurels,  which  the  article  would 
wickedly  dispute  his  right  to  wear,  must  have  irrspired  him  with 
the  following  polished  specimen  of  Christian  meekness,  and  lite- 
rary refinement:  ''nothing  but  the  love  of  liberty,  as  an  Ameri- 
can, and  of  truth  as  a  Protestant  Christian,  could  induce  Mm 
to  subject  his  feelings  to  the  coarse  and  ill-bred  impertinence  of 
a  priesthood,  whose  temper  and  treatment  towards  other  men, 
alternate  between  servility  to  their  spiritual  sovereigns,  and  op- 
pression of  their  unhappy  subjects.  He  can  and  will  bear,  for 
the  sake  of  the  great  cause,  whatever  may  be  made  necessary; 


75 

though,  thank  God,  he  is  not  forced  to  do  it,  either  as  the  minion 
of  the  Pope,  or  the  subject  of  ever  arrogant  and  vulgar  Je- 
suitism.^^ 

Do  you  not,  sir,  pity  the  gentleman?  The  Chesterfield  of  the 
Presbyterian  church, — the  magister  elegantiarum, — to  be  exposed 
to  the  retorts  of  a  Catholic  priest!  But,  for  sake  of  "the  great 
cause"  he  is  willing  to  be  a  martyr. — Still  it  is  hard  to  have  his 
fine,  delicate  feelings  exposed  to  such  rude  treatment !  He  ought, 
however,  to  remember,  that  aiming  at  the  imuiortality  of  an  author, 
he  must  be  prepared  to  encounter  the  trials  to  which  his  ambition 
has  exposed  him.  When  he  uses  language  in  reference  to  his 
present  position,  which  is  a  violation  of  the  most  common  polite- 
ness, he  must  not  expect  that  it  can  be  allowed  to  pass  unnoticed. 
Is  not  every  term,  in  the  foregoing  extract,  chosen — is  not  every 
sentence  arranged,  for  the  express  purpose  of  gross  insult  ?  He 
would  now  claim  sympathy  as  the  reward  of  a  position,  Avhich  he 
has  sought  with  assiduity.  He  it  was,  who  kept  up  a  standing 
advertisement,  challenging  me  to  an  "  oral  discussion."  He  it 
was,  who  rudely,  as  I  conceive,  thrust  himself  between  me  and 
my  relation  to  this  society.  He  it  was,  who  addressed  to  me 
the  most  unwarrantable  letter  I  ever  received  in  my  life,  praying 
that  I  would  give  him  the  opportunity  to  meet  me  in  this  discus- 
sion. And  now,  forsooth,  his  truly  delicate  feelings  are  exposed, 
not  by  his  own  seeking,  of  course  : — Oh  no,  but  for  '*  the  great 
cause."  Give  him  sympathy,  then  all  ye  that  love  the  *' great 
cause." 

The  gentleman  knew  that  I  disliked  to  have  any  thing  more,  to 
do  with  him,  after  the  close  of  our  late  Controversy ;  and  I  leave 
it  to  the  connoisseurs  in  good  breeding  to  determine  how  far  his 
forcing  himself  on  my  notice,  can  be  reconciled  with  those  pre- 
tensions to  refined  feelings  which  he  has  set  forth.  He  promised 
himself  immense  glory  from  an  oral  discussion.  He  drew  infe- 
rences from  my  reluctance  to  meet  him,  which  the  case  did  not 
warrant.  It  was  not  that  I  dreaded  his  arguments,  nor  distrusted 
my  own.  But  I  had  been  obliged  to  expose  the  gentleman  during 
the  controversy,  in  a  way  so  disagreeable  to  myself,  and  necessa- 
rily discreditable  to  him,  that.  I  regarded  him  as  having  suffered 
literary  shipwreck. 

When  a  writer  affects  to  be  learned,  and  quotes  from  an  author 
something  as  evidence,  he  ought  to  kno.w  for  certain  the  truth  of 
his  quotation.  When  the  sense  of  the  author  is  perverted,  either 
by  additions,  or  omissions,  or  garblings,  then  the  proceeding  is 
entitled  literary  forgery.  And  when  this  is  exposed  in  a  contro- 
versy, either  political,  literary,  or  religious,  the  individual  who  is 
convicted  is  regarded  by  men  of  high  honour,  as  hors  de  combat. 
He  is  done. — Neither  is  it  enough  to  say  that  the  forgery  was 
copied,  and  not  original.  The  man  who  is  necessarily  at  the 
mercy  of  second-hand  authority,  ought  not  to  rush  into  a  discus- 


76 

sion  where  the  fountains  are  to  be  consulted.  In  the  course  of 
tliat  "Controversy,  and  in  the  4:hity  of  defending  my  religion  against 
reckless  and  unfounded  assertion,  I  was  compelled  to  offer  a  pre- 
mium of  five  hundred  dollars  to  any  professor  who  should  find  a 
certain  quotation,  by  Mr.  Breckinridge,  in  the  place  in  which  he 
professed  to  find  it,  but  where  it  did  not  exist.  The  advertise- 
ment is  still  on  record — and  the  premium  unclaimed.  (1)  Whilst 
the  gentleman  stands  in  this  position,  before  the  public,  he  will 
see  a  reason  why  I  desired  to  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  him, 
in  tlie  way  of  controversy.  Otliers,  too,  will  discover  that  the  gen- 
tleman's claim  to  fine,  sensitive  feelings — (refuted,  however,  by 
the  very  gross  language  in  which  he  asserts  it,)  comes  too  late. 
His  position,  as  one  who  trifled  with  authors,  and  made  them 
speak  falsehoods  to  support  hi§  argument,  was  a  much  harder 
trial  for  his  honour,  than  to  encounter  the  viva  voce  refutation  of 
his  arguments.  I  recommend  patience  under  contradiction.  When- 
ever he  errs  in  history,  philosophy,  logic,  theology,  it  will  be  my 
duty,  if  I  can^  to  advise  him  of  it ;  and  this,  I  am  aware,  will  be 
hardly  borne,  by  one  who  has  been  accustomed  to  have  his  ipse 
dixit  received  as  the  gospel. 

As  to  the  points  of  his  speech  which  relate  to  the  argument, 
and  not  to  himself,  I  am  happy  to  perceive  that  his  views  on  prin- 
ciples of  civil  government  are  much  improved  since  he  last  spoke. 
He  had  censured  my  argument  for  maintaining  the  right  of  the 
majority  to  rule.  In  reply  I  retorted  that,  since  he  denied  this 
right  to  the  majority,  he  must,  of  course,  ascribe  it  to  the  minority; 
and  in  that  case,,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  Presbyterians  might 
not  now  begin  to  rule  for  the  nation  at  lai-ge.  Startled  at  the  evi- 
dence of  this  consequence,  he  turns  back  in  his  last  address,  and 
states  that  his  principle  is  "  that  the  majority  have  no  right  to  rule, 
in  violation  of  certain  rights  of  the  minority.'*^  Now  this  is 
common  sense ;  and  if  the  gentleman  had  stated  his  proposition 
thus  qualified,  in  his  first  speech,  there  would  have  been  no  disa- 
greement on  the  matter.  He  is  mistaken,  therefore,  when  he  re- 
presents me  as  replying,  '•^ pertly^''  or  otherwise,  to  what  did  not 
exist.  This  is  a  new  proposition.  I  agree  with  him,  that  in  re- 
lation to  certain  rights  of  the  minority,  no  majority  has  a  right  to 
rule.  And  this  doctrine  I  have  stated  at  large  in  my  answer  to  his 
first  speech, 

I  had  laid  down  as  a  principle,  that  the  man,  who,  as  a  citizen, 
refuses  to  discharge  the  duties  lawfully  imposed  on  him,  by  that 
relation:  or,  as  a  member  of  a  Church,  refuses  to  comply  with  the 
reorulations  of  the  religious  society  to  which  he  belongs,  **  by  an 
appeal  to  his  pretended  natural  right,  would  be  justly  regarded  as 
unworthy  to  participate  in  the  privileges  of  either:"  viz.  of  the 
government,  or  of  the  church,  to  which  he  belonged. 

(1)  See  Controversy,  p.  411.  Johnson's  editioru 


77 

There  is  not  in  the  community,  a  man  of  common  sense,  to 
whom  this  proposition  is  not  self-evident;  and  yet  my  opponent, 
strnck  apparently  with  its  novelty  or  extravagance,  calls  it  a  "  can- 
did admission."  It  was  not  candid  in  him,  however,  to  suppress 
a  portion  of  my  statement,  in  order  to  misrepresent  me  by  the  other 
portion.  He  makes  me  say,  that  **  by  lawful  authority,  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  duties  may  be  established  in  a  stale;'''  as  if  I  recog- 
nised in  the  state,  the  right  to  appoint  ecclesiastical  duties.  I 
spoke  distinctly  of  civil  duties  as  established  in  the  state ;  and  of 
eeclesiastical  duties  (as  established)  **  in  the  religious  body  of 
ivhich  one  is  a  member.  The  gentleman's  artifice,  therefore,  in 
suppressing  a  portion  of  the  statement,  and  perverting  the  rest, 
must  redound  to  the  glory  of  Presbyterianism.  On  this  perversion 
he  builds  g.  series  of  inductions,  which,  inasmuch  as  they  are 
built  on  di  false  imputation,  deserve  no  reply.  He  winds  up,  how- 
ever, with  the  following  question,  which  contains  the  cream  of 
his  logic.  If  he  (the  Pope)  were  in  this  land,  and  a  constitu- 
tional majority  of  the  States  were  to  alter  the  constitution,  so  as 
to  Tnake  the  Pope  a  temporal  and  spiritual  head  of  the  nation  for 
life,  and  his  successor  eligible  for  life  by  Cardinals,  would  it  not 
be  an  invasion  of  our  rights?'"*     Answer — It  would.     And  we 

SHOULD  BE  GREAT   DUNCES  IF  WE  SUBMITTED  TO  IT.       ^^  .Would   it 

not  be  an  invasion  of  the  rights  of  the  m,inority  ?"  Yes,  most 
DECIDEDLY.  **  And  wouUl  uot  the  majority  be  voluntary  slaves?'^ 
I  think  not;  since  the  case  supposes  them  to  act  "constitution- 
ally," and  by  the  impulse  of  their  own  free  and  sovereign 
CHOICE.  The  principle  of  the  hypothesis  is  the  same,  no  matter 
on  whom  the  choice  should  fall.  However,  if  they  were  to  "  alter 
the  constitution,"  and  appoint  "  the  Pope  and  all  his  successors," 
they  would,  in  my  humble  opinion,  do  a  very  foolish  thing,  ft 
would  exceed,  in  absurdity,  even  the  hypothesis  itself 

The  gentleman  has  undertaken  to  prove  that  the  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  religion  are  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty.  In 
order  to  refute  his  position,  it  is  sufficient  to  show,  that  Catholics 
can  be  the  most  strenuous  promoters  of  both  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  without  violating  any  doctrine  of  their  creed.  To  assert 
a  proposition,  and  maintain  it  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
is  regarded  as  heresy;  and  such  Catholics  as  do  so,  are  permitted 
to  become  Presbyterians  as  soon  as  they  wish.  Therefore,  if 
there  were  any  doctrine,  in  the  Catholic  Church,  opposed  to  civil 
and  religious  liberty,  it  would  be  heresy  to  advocate  the  principles 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  Now,' this  principle  has  been  advo- 
cated by  Catholic  individuals  and  Catholic  nations,  and  in  this 
they  have  never  been  accused  of  violating  any  doctrine  of  their 
religion.  France  is  certainly  a  Catholic  nation  ;  and  yet  all  reli- 
gions are  equal.  Poland  is  a  Catholic  country  ;  and  yet  Catholic 
Poland  has  always  been  conspicuous  among  the  nations  for  its 
advocacy  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.     If,  therefore,  Catholic 


78 

nations  and  individuals  can  be,  and  have  been,  the  advocates  of 
civil  and  religious  liberty,  it  follows  that  the  most  unbounded  free- 
dom, both  political  and  religious,  is  perfectly  compatible  with  the 
principles  and  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  religion. 

Now,  the  gentleman's  reference  to  the  political  and  religious 
condition  of  the  Papal  dominions,  must  be  intended  only  for  the 
ignorant  portion  of  his  hearers.  His  argument  betrays  itself  the 
moment  you  bring  it  to  the  test  of  reason.  Supposing  that  I  were 
to  grant  him  all  he  requires,  and  agree  that  the  subjects  of  the 
Papal  dominion  are  oppressed  by  an  arbitrary  and  absolute  govern- 
ment, his  inference  that,  therefore,  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic 
religion  are  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  is  a  non  sequi- 
tur  in  reasoning,  and  a  contradiction  of  history  in  point  of  fact. 
The  opposition  which  the  political  views  of  popes  have  had  to 
encounter  from  Catlioli<:  governments  in  past  ages,  is  a  sufficient 
evidence  that  the  political  creed  of  the  Roman  States  constitutes 
no  part  of  the  Catholic  religion.  If  the  gentleman  would  conde- 
scend to  read  history  on  the  subject,  he  would  learn,  that  the  only 
connexion  between  Catholics  and  the  Pope,  is  the  connexion  be- 
tween the  visible  head  and  the  visible  members  of  the  Church — 
Christ,  its  founder,  being  the  supreme  invisible  head.  He  would 
learn  that  the  object  of  this  connexion,  is  the  unity  of  belief  in 
one  Lord,  one  faith,  and  one  baptism.  He  would  learn  that  m 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  Catholics  have  always  distinguished  be- 
tween the  legitimate  authority  of  the  Pontiff,  appertaining  to  a 
kingdom,  which  is  not  of  this  world,  and  the  pretensions  of  the 
temporal  prince.  And  whilst  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  religion 
taught  them  to  be  submissive  to  the  one,  it  left  them  the  right  not 
only  to  resist,  but  even  to  chastise  the  temerity  of  the  other.  In 
short,  any  man  who  is  acquainted  with  history,  and  honest  in  the 
use  he  makes  of  it,  will  discover  in  the  religious  unity,  between 
Catholic  nations  and  the  see  of  Rome,  and  in  the  political  re- 
sistance to  the  pretensions  of  various  Popes,  when  they  undertook 
to  meddle  in  the  civil  concerns  of  other  states,  the  broad  historical 
evidence,  that,  as  regards  civil  and  religious  liberty,  Catholics  are 
as  unshackled  in  their  doctrines,  as  any  other  denomination. 
This  the  British  nation  have  acknowledged,  by  restoring  the 
Catholics  to  their  political  rights.  And  it  is  worthy  of  the  Pres- 
byterian parsonhood,  to  take  up  the  cud  of  bigotry  and  persecu- 
tion— which  even  England  had  thrown  away,  after  having  chew- 
ed it  for  three  centuries — and  present  it  to  the  palate  of  Ameri- 
cans. 

But  the  gentleman  tells  us,  that  he  recognizes  "  as  a  natural 
and  indefeasible  right,  the  right  of  worship  which  God  confers  on 
every  man."  This  he  calls  his  principle:  to  which  I  reply,  that 
it  is  as  much  my  principle  as  his.  Yet  it  does  not  follow,  that  I 
have  "  a  natural  and  indefeasible  right"  to  say  mass  in  the  halls 
of  the  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  under  the  plea  of  wov' 


79 

ship.  Neither  does  it  follow,  that  he  has  a  right  to  preach  Cal- 
vinism under  the  Pope's  window,  denouncing  the  civil  head  of 
the  Roman  States,  as  a  **  usurper,"  and  the  supreme  Bishop  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  as  "  Anti-Christ."  This  would  be  not 
merely  an  act  of  worship,  it  would  be  preaching  sedition;  and  if 
the  doctrine  took  effect,  bloodshed  must  be  the  consequence.  To 
say  mass,  however,  is  an  act  of  mere  worship,  having  no  other 
effects  or  relations,  than  those  which  relate  to  God,  and  the  con- 
sciences of  the  worshippers.  And  yet,  the  Presljyterian  laws  of 
Scotland  held  it  enacted,  that  the  individual  who  should  be  con- 
victed of  performing  or  assisting  at  this  act  of  mere  worship, 
"  THREE  TIMES,"  evc^i  in  the  caves  of  the  mountain,  should  be 
PUT  to  death. 

Now  the  gentleman  himself  disclaims  this  article  of  Scotch 
Presbyterianism,  and  contends  for  the  unbounded  freedom  of  con- 
science and  right  of  worship.  Let  me,  then,  ask  him  a  question: 
(and  I  beg  you,  gentlemen,  to  mark  his  answer  well.)  Supposing 
that  the  wife  or  daughter  of  a  Presbyterian  minister  should 
claim  the  right  of  worshipping  God  according  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  Church — I  ask  the  gentleman,  whether  that  Presby- 
terian minister  is  bound  to  grant  her  the  right  which  she  demands, 
in  the  name  of  conscience  and  of  God  ?  Let  him  answer  that. 
Is  he  bound  to  allow  her  to  go  to  confession,  when  her  conscience 
prompts  her  to  do  so?  If  he  answers  in  the  negative,  then,  you 
will  understand  how  hollow  are  his  professions  of  zeal  for  the 
"  rights  of  worship  and  of  conscience,"  which  he  calls  '*  his  prin- 
ciple."    This  will  test  all  he  has  said  on  this  subject. 

The  gentleman  misrepresents  me,  when  he  charges  me  with 
having  "  vested  all  rights  civil  and  religious,  in  the  majority." 
Whenever  I  spoke  of  the  majority,  I  spoke  of  them  in  connexion 
with  those  things  in  which  the  principles  of  a  free  government 
acknowledge  their  right  to  rule;  and  already  it  becomes  manifest, 
that  the  success  of  his  cause  will  depend  on  the  success  with 
which  the  arguments  of  his  opponent  can  be  misrepresented.  The 
rights  of  conscience,  and  of  worship,  are  older  than  all  civil 
government.  They  are  coeval  with  the  human  mind  ;  their  ex- 
istence is  independent  of  civil  law5 — which  have  only  the  power 
to  recognise  or  not  recognise  them.  Catholic  constitutions  have 
sometimes  recognised  them — Presbyterian  constitutions,  never. 

In  the  oracular  mood  of  his  last  speech,  the  gentleman  had 
gone  into  a  very  minute  detail  of  the  "  usurpations"  in  church 
and  state,  with  which  the  world  is  afflicted.  The  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  were  the  only  two  sources  of  authority  that  did  not 
enter  into  his  catalogue.  I  took  the  liberty  of  observing,  that  be 
might  have  saved  a  tedious  enumeration,  if  he  had  said  at  once, 
that  "  AL1.  jurisdiction  is  an  usurpation,  except  ivhat  is  exercised 
by  Congress  and  the  G.eneral  Assembly.''     He  intimates  that  I 


80    - 

have  spoken  disrespectfully  of  Congress,  by  associating  it  with 
the  General  Assembly.  This  was  not  my  meaning;  and  he  would 
again  mistake  me,  if  he  were  to  suppose  that  I  ascribe  to  the  said 
.General  Assembly  any  of  those  blessings  of  "  civil  and  religious 
freedom,"  which  he  very  properly  ascribes  to  another  source. 
Yet,  though  it  is  my  privilege  to  regard  the  authority  exercised 
by  the  General  Assembly,  as  "  usurpation,"  still  I  must  say,  with 
every  man  acquainted  with  the  mode  in  which  it  is  organised,  that 
for  the  purposes  of  popular  and  political  government,  its  structure 
is  little  inferior  to  that  of  the  Congress  itself.  In  any  emergency 
that  may  arise,  the  General  Assembly  can  produce  a  uniformity  of 
action  among  its  adherents  to  the  farthest  boundaries  of  the  land. 
It  acts  on  the  principle  of  a  radiating  centre,  and  is  without  an 
equal  or  a  rival  among  the  other  denominations  of  the  country. 

Catholics,  in  the  adoption  and  profession  of  their  religion,  are 
actuated  by  the  power  of  the  evidences  that  establish,  in  their 
mind,  the  truth  of  their  creed.  Whenever  men  profess  a  creed 
from  other  motives,  they  become  hypocrites,  and  are  incapable  of 
rendering  worship  to  God,  who  is  a  Spirit,  and  who  desires  to  be 
adored  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  Hence  it  is  as  absurd,  as  it  is  tyran- 
ical,  to  attempt  io  force  the  consciences  of  men. 

The  faculty  of  the  human  mind,  which  decides  on  the  question 
of  creeds,  is  the  judgment  which  cannot  be  coerced  by  civil  laws. 
Civil  governments  would  be  as  well  employed  in  passing  laws  to 
regulate  the  will  and  memory  of  the  subject  or  citizen,  as  in  at- 
tempting to  regulate  the  understanding.  I  submit  to  all  the 
duties  of  religion  prescribed  by  the  Catholic  Church,  because  in 
the  unfettered  exercise  of  my  uNt)ERSTANDiNG,  I  have  come  to  the 
conviction  that  the  doctrines  of  that  church  are  the  doctrines  pro- 
mulgated by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles.  The  motive,  therefore, 
which  induces  me  to  be  a  Catholic,  is  as  much  superior  to  all  hu- 
man authority,  as  God  is  superior  to  man,  or  as  mind  is  superior  ot 
matter.  Why  then,  if  the  gentleman  holds  these  principles,  does 
he  associate  himself  with  those,  who,  in  contempt  of  the  American 
Constitution,  are,  as  far  as  they  can  with  safety,  persecuting  Ca- 
tholics for  conscience  sake?  Are  not  the  misguided  fanatics, 
who  are  covering  the  Catholic  name  with  the  slime  of  vulgar  ca- 
lumny, low  invective,  and  mere  Billingsgate  argument, — who  are 
passing  from  town  to  town,  and  from  city  to  city,  appealing  to  the 
worst  passions  of  ignorance  and  prejudice — and  stoopino-  from 
their  pretensions  as  ministers  of  Christ,  to  the  office  of  mere  poli- 
tical haranguers,  are  not  these  trying  to  induce  "  human  au- 
thority to  interfere  with  the  rights  of  conscience  ?"  As  a  speci- 
men of  their  style,  I  have  only  to  quote  from  the  gentleman  him- 
self. He  says  that  Catholics  must  believe  in  the  right  of  human 
authority  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of  conscience.  This  is  a 
gross  calumny.  I  am  a  Catholic,  and  I  have  repeatedly  asserted 
the  contrary.     He  says  that  they  **  ascribe  to  the  Pope  the  right 


81 

and  the  power  to  dictate  their  creed  and  to  force  obedience  to  it."" 
This  is  another  gross  calumny ;  the  Pope  has  no  such  right,  and 
the  proposition  would  he  condemned  by  the  Pope  himself,  and  the 
whole  Catholic  Church ,  as  heretical.  He  says  that  Catholics 
"  are  voluntary  slaves  by  giving  up  their  rights  of  conscience." 
This  is  equally  a  calumny.  They  worship  Almighty  God  **  ac- 
cording to  the  dictates  of  their  Conscience,"  and  this  is  their 
crime  in  the  estimation  of  the  Presbyterian  bigots,  who  persecute 
them  now,  as  they  have  ever  done,  because  they  refuse  to  give  up 
these  rights.  It  was  natural  that,  having  made  the  foundation  of 
his  argument  of  "  gross  calumnies,"  his  conclusion,  that  "hence 
no  good  Catholic  can  be  a  consistent  Am,erican,^^  should  be  what 
it  really  is, — a  gross  libel.  Let  the  gentleman  inscribe  it  on  the 
tomb  of  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrollton,  and  the  very  marble  will 
blush  for  him,  if  he  cannot  blush  for  himself. 

The  gentleman  admits  that  persecution  was  a  part  of  Presbyte- 
rianism  in  all  other  countries,  but  he  says  that  the  "  question  li- 
mits my  investigation  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States,  and  in  connexion  with  the  General  Assembly."  This  is 
not  the  fact.  The  limits  of  the  question  are,  the  Presbyterian 
RELIGION  IN  ANY  OR  ALL  OF  ITS  DOCTRINES."  Under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  American  Constitution  it  is  no  great  merit  to  say  that 
the  Presbyterian  Church  has  not  persecuted  other  denominations  ; 
and  this  is  about  as  far  as  the  gentleman  feels  authorised  to  go. 
For  the  rest,  he  says  that  the  Presbyterians  learned  persecution 
from  the  church  of  Rome;  and  if  so,  it  must  be  confessed  that 
they  remembered  the  lesson  a  long  while,  and  practised  it  so  uni- 
formly, that  it  never  would  have  been  forgotten,  had  they  not  been 
obliged,  in  the  development  of  national  events,  to  submit  to  the 
influence  of  extrinsic  liberality.  He  says,  however,  that  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  is  not  infallible,  of  which,  indeed,  there  is  sufficient 
evidence.  Now  when  it  shall  be  my  privilege  to  investigate  "  the 
doctrines  and  principles  of  the  Presbyterian  religion,"  I  pledge 
myself  to  prove  that  persecution,  for  conscience  sake,  has  been 
their  doctrine.  And  as  they  are  fallible,  they  may  discover  in  due 
time,  that  in  disavowing  this  doctrine  out  of  compliment  to  the 
American  Constitution,  they  were  guilty  of  a  departure  from 
the  "  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  Hence,  their  fallibility 
in  doctrine  is  a  very  suspicious  argument  to  prove  that  they  will 
never  relapse  into  their  old  habits.  The  gentleman  says  that  the 
Catholic  Church  is,  or  claims  to  be,  infallible.  This  is  true.  She 
claims  to  have  received  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  from  Christ 
and  his  apostles.  She  claims  to  have  received  divine  commission 
to  teach  and  transmit  these  doctrines,  unchanged  as  she  received 
them.  Hence  she  claims  to  have  been  constituted  a  witness  of 
what  they  are — with  authority  to  expel  from  her  communion  those 
who  would  add,  or  diminish,  or  pervert.  She  makes  no  doctrine  ; 
she  repudiates  none  that  was  originally  committed  to  her  testi- 


82 

mony.  In  giving  that  testimony,  she  claims  to  be  protected  from 
the  attestation  of  falsehood,  by  the  promise  of  him  who  said  '*  I 
am  with  you  all  days  till  the  consummation  of  the  world."  In  this 
sense,  therefore,  and  in  this  sense  alone,  she  claims  to  be  "  infal- 
lible." If  she  teach  as  *'  a  tenet  of  fafth  »r  morale  revealed 
BY  Almighty  God"  that"  civil  and  religious  liberty," or  either  of 
them,  issinful,  then  I  ambound  as  a  Catholicto  believe aceordingly, 
and  I  should  he  guilty  of  heresy  were  I  to  deny  it. 

Now  it  is  known  that  all  Catholics  repudiate  this  charge ;  and 
consequently,  tbatei/Aer  tlieir  faith  disclaims  this  imputed  doctrine, 
ore/setheysin  against  their  faith  and  fall  into  heresy.  Bat  Catholics-, 
it  may  be  said,  have  opposed  civil  and  relig^ious  liberty.  Yes,  and 
other,  and  perhaps  better  CalhoHcs  have  advocated  civil  and  reli- 
gious liberty  ;  their  doctrines  leaving  them  at  perfect  liberty  to 
exercise  their  own  discretion  in  the  matter.  The  inhabitants  of 
South  America  have  vindicated  their  liberty  by  revolution — have 
they  ceased  to  be  Catholics  on  this  account  ?  And  they  might 
declare  equal  protection  and  privilege  in  the  state,  to  the  professors 
of  every  other  religion,  without  violating  one  iota  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  They  might  follow  the  example  of  the 
Catholic  colony  of  Maryland,  who  were  the  first  to  teach  the  pu- 
ritans of  New  England,  and  the  bigots  of  the  world,  that  no  hu- 
man authority  has  a  right  to  interpose  between  the  conscience  of 
man  and  his  God ;  and  yet  be  even  better  Catholics  than  they 
are.  All  this  proves  that  there  is  no  doctrine  in  the  Catholic  creed 
opposed  to  "  civil  and  religious  liberty,"  and  it  proves  that  no  such 
doctrine  can  ever  become  a  portion  of  that  creed,  which  woxxXd  for- 
feit its  claims  to  infallibility,  the  moment  it  should  teach  as  a 
"  tenet  revealed  by  Almighty  God,"  any  article  that  had  not  been 
taught  and  believed  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity. 

The  gentleman  says,  that  in  quoting  from  his  standards,  I  ** put 
in  a  false  phrase  and  left  the  true  one  out.''''  I  deny  the  fact,  and 
challenge  him  for  the  proof.  Until  he  furnish  the  proof,  I  pronounce 
the  charge  unfounded  in  truth.  It  is  a  habit  which  I  have  had  too 
much  reason  to  despise  in  others,  to  be  guilty  of  it  myself. 

My  opponent  firxls  himself  unable  to  controvert  any  of  my  dis- 
tinctions of  •'  RIGHTS,"  or  the  definition  given  of  them.  Another, 
finding  them  just  and  logical,  would  have  passed  on.  But  not  so 
the  gentleman.  He  has  discovered  that  I  include  the  legitimate 
m,inisters  of  the  Christian  religion  as  persons  exercising  functions 
by  *'  divine  right."  I  gave  Moses  and  the  apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors, as  instances.  He  has  not  thought  it  too  petty  to  insinu- 
ate that  I  was  advocating  the  pretensions  of*  kings"  to  rule  by 
**  divine  right."  His  motive  for  this  little  artifice  cannot  be  mis- 
taken. Now  I  shall  shoAV  that  every  Presbyterian  parson  pretends 
to  be  a  minister  of  Christ  by  '*  divine  right."  They  are  not  horn 
ministers.  The  government  could  not  make  them  ministers. 
How  then?     By  what  right  do  they  exercise  the  ministry?     By 


83 

divine  right,  as  they  say.  They  were  called  of  God  as  they  pre- 
tend, but  not  exactly  '*  as  Aaron  was."  This  is  their  doctrine, 
and  if  1  am  mistaken  I  shall  be  glad  to  hear  the  correction,  in  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  gentleman,  that  he  is  a  Presbyterian  mi- 
nister, but  not  by  divine  right.  \i,  therefore,  this  doctrine 
*'  squints,"  as  he  has  elegantly  expressed  it,  in  favour  of**  kings," 
and  against  the  Constitution,  it  follows  that  he  is  as  much  commit- 
ted by  it,  as  I  am.  But  the  thing  was  almost  too  little  to  have  de- 
served any  notice. 

We  now  pass  to  the  gentleman's  long  commentary  on  the  defi- 
nition of  "civil  liberty."  By  this  we  agreed  to  understand 
*^  the  absolute  rights  of  the  individual  restrained  only  for  the  pre' 
servation  of  order  in  society^  This  definition,  his  own,  must 
be  very  obscure,  when  four  pages  have  been  wasted  in  comment- 
aries on  it,  which,  however,  only  wrap  it  up  in  thicker  folds  of 
obscurity.  It  is  much  easier  to  understand  the  text  than  the  com- 
mentary. The  whole  seems  to  be  intended  as  a  high-wrought 
panegyric  of  the  principles  set  forth  in  the  Constitution,  of  which 
f  am  as  fond  an  admirer  as  the  gentleman  can  be.  Yet  I  must 
say,  that  this  perpetual  stooping  to  flatter  the  republican  feelings  of 
the  audience,  is  but  a  lame  way  of  maintaining  an  argument,  whilst 
it  is  anything  but  complimentary  to  their  understandings.  Now 
i<t  is  a  singular  fact,  that  whilst  the  gentleman  affects  to  be  almost, 
an  idolater  of  the  American  Constitution,  other  Reverend  geniJe- 
men,  regarded  by  Presbyterians,  as  sound  in  the  faith,  and  as 
learned  as  my  present  opponent  in  Presbyterian  theology,  have 
denounced  that  Constitution  as  a  Godless  instrument.  The 
General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  held  in 
Pittsburg,  in  the  month  of  October,  1834,  in  two  Overtures  pub- 
lished as  an  appendix  to  its  proceedings,  maintains  the  following 
propositions  against  the  United  States  and  State  Constitutions.  In 
the  first  Overture  we  find  the  following  propositions  explicitly  laid 
down  : — 

"  We  proceed  now  to  establish  the  charge  of  immoralitv 
against  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  {!) 

"  1.  It  does  not  acknowledge  or  make  any  reference  to  the  ex- 
istence or  providence  of  a  Supreme  Being." 

"2.  The  United  States  Constitution  does  not  recognise  the  re- 
vealed will  of  God. 

"  3.  The  Constitution  of  (he  United  States  acknowledges  no  sub- 
jection to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  (2) 

Again,  (3)  "  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  contains 
the  infidel  and  ant/-christian  principle,  that  a  nation,  as  such, 
ought  not  to  support  nor  even  recognise  the  religion  of  the  Lor<l 
Jesus  Christ.  Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  the  esta- 
blishment of  religion  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof" 

(J)  Overture,  p.  5.  (2)  Page  6.    '  (3)  Page  8. 


84 

Tlie  gentleman  will  tell  you,  that  these  are  the  doctrines  not  of 
the  Presbyterians,  but  of  the  Befonned  Presbyterians  in  the  United 
States.  But  do  not  these  kindred  denominations  exchange  pulpits  ? 
Do  they  not  exchange  the  right  hand  of  Christian  fellowship  1  . 
And  if  they  do,  does  it  not  follow,  that  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  tliere  is  no  essential  heresy  in  this  doctrine 
of  their  reformed  brethren?  These  are  matters  which  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  reconcile  with  the  "  blarney,''''  with  which  the  gentleman 
treats  the  American  Constitution,  which  his  brethren  denounce,  as 
containing  "  infidel"  and  "  anti-christian"  principles. 

Neither  can  I  help  believing  that  the  gentleman  has  perverted 
the  meaning  and  spirit  of  the  American  Constitution,  when  he 
tells  us  that  "  it  jusiijies  as  a  right  that  iv/rich  legitimacy  de- 
nominates rebellion  and  treason.''^  This  is  injudicious  praise.  I 
presume  the  advocates  of  "rebellion  and  treason"  against  this 
government,  would  find  themselves  mistaken  in  appealing  to  the 
Constitution  for  their  right  to  perpetrate  rebellion  and  treason. 
The  gentleman  wishes  to  know  whether  I  think  "  our  revolution 
was  rebellion,  our  resistance  treason?''''  I  answer,  that,  2>i  ^/ly 
opinion.,  our  revolution  was  a  successful  experiment  of  popular  re- 
sistance against  unjust  and  tyrannical  oppression,  justified,  not  by 
the  broad  principles  of  anarchy  laid  down  by  him,  but  justified  by 
the  jjarticular  grievances  to  which  it-  owed  its  origin.  I  believe 
it  was  so  understood  by  the  immortal  men  who  wrought  out  the 
experiment  and  constructed  the  fabric  of  our  national  independence. 
They  had  no  idea  that  the  Constitution  would  ever  come  to  be 
considered  as  the  patent-right  of  what  "  legitimacy  denominates 
rebellion  and  treason  ;"  or  that  it  should,  ever  be  denounced  as 
containing  "immorality,"  "infidel,"  and  "  Anti-Christian"  princi- 
ples. This  is  quite  enough  on  the  gentleman's  four  pages  of  po- 
litical casuistry — for  in  the  correction  of  his  speech  it  extends  to 
four  pages. 

His  next  matter  is  a  return  to,  and  repetition  of,  what  he  had  said 
on  baptism  in  his  last  speech,  and  what  I  had  refuted  in  mine. 
He  goes  to  Ainsworth's  Dictionary  for  the  meaning  of  what  Catho- 
lics understand  by  the  word  "  cogendus,"  in  one  of  the  canons  of 
the  Council  of  Trent.  He  does  not  adduce  any  fact  to  support 
his  misapprehension  of  its  meaning.  I  leave  the  explanation-given 
in  my  last  speech,  as  a  sufficient  reply  to  the  vapid  declamation, 
without  either  fact  or  argument,  with  which  he  has  thought  pro- 
per to  return  to  it.  It  is  a  maxim  of  logic,  that  "  what  is  gra- 
tuitously asserted,  may  be  gratuitously  der\ied."  When  the  gen- 
tleman adduces  facts  instead  of  assertions,  to  prove  his  construc- 
tion, I  shall  be  prepared  to  meet  him. 

There  is  one  remark  of  his,  however,  which  shows  that  his 
knowledge  of  the  history  of  his  own  church  is  somewhat  defec- 
tive. 1  showed  that  Presbyterians  themselves  claim  the  right  to 
"compel"   members  to  lead  Christian  lives,  hy  other  penalties 


85 

^*  besides  exclusion  from  the  sacraments  "—such  as  suspension 
and  excommunication.  He  informs  me,  however,  that  these  are 
the  only  punishments  by  which  Presbyterians  "  discipline  their 
adult  members."  The  Council  of  Trent  prescribed  no  other. 
But  I  would  beg  leave  to  oppose  to  the  gentleman's  assertion,  the 
authority  of  the  historian  Gilb.  Stuart,  who  tells  us  that  one  of  the 
ways  in  which  they  (Presbyterians)  "  disciplined  iheir  members," 
for  breaking  the  fast  of  Lent,  was  whipping  in  the  church.  (1) 

On  the  head  of  Auricular  Confession,  the  gentleman  still  thinks 
and  says  it  is  "tyranny,"  "  voluntary  slavery,"  "blasphemy," 
*'  unbounded  oppression,"  &c.,  &c.,  though  he  modestly  abstains 
"rom  producing  any  new  argument  against  it,  except  what  I  shall 
lotice  presently.  I  refer  the  reader  to  my  explanation  of  this  doc- 
rine  in  the  last  speech.  Catholics  believe  that  auricular  confes- 
lion,  as  they  understand  it,  is  a  part  of  the  religion  of  Christ.  In 
)ractising  this  duty,  therefore,  they  only  exercise  the  rights  of 
tf  conscience,  like  other  denominations.  They  can  pity  the  blind- 
less,  and  pardon  the  bigotry,  of  those  who  denounce  them  for  the 
exercise  of  this  right;  and  who  yet  pretend  to  be  advocates  of 
freedom  of  conscience.  I  had,  indeed,  charged  the  gentleman, 
not  only  with  "  misunderstanding"  our  doctrine,  but  also  with  per- 
verting the  language  in  which  it  was  expressed.  By  way  of  vin- 
dicating himself  from  this  charge,  he  makes  a  show  of  appealing 
to  the  original  Latin : — "  Is  it  not  written,*^  says  he,  "  near  at 
hand — poenam  quam,  opportet  pro  illis  poenitentibus  im,ponere.^^ 
And  what  will  be  the  reader's  disgust  to  learn  that  this  beautiful 
specimen  of  Latinity,  put  forth  as  a  quotation  from  the  Council  of 
Trent,  is  a  fabrication — a  forgery  V  The  only  sentence  at  all 
like,  it,  (and  the  likeness  is  very  remote,)  is  this  ....  neque 
aequitatem  quidem  in  poenis  injungendis  servare  potuisse  ....  to 
which  I  referred  in  my  last  speech.  The  Rev.  gentleman  must 
have  become  quite  rusty  in  his  grammar,  when  he  ventured  on 
giving,  AS  Latin,  a  phrase  which  is  a  most  palpable  violation  of  all 
syntax.  He  says  he  follows  the  "  faithful  Cramp"- — author  of  the 
"Text  Book  of  Popery" — and  if  so,  I  can  only  say  that  the  mas- 
ter and  the  disciple  are  worthy  of  each  other.  The  Scripture  tells 
us,  that  "  if  the  blind  lead  the  blind,  both  will  fall  into  the  pit." 

But  if  the  gentleman,  in  making  the  fathers  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  responsible  for  his  own  spurious  and  ungramm,atical  Latin^ 
has  given  proof  that  he  has  forgotten  his  grammar,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  he  has  forgotten  his  poetry.  His  success  in  this  depart- 
ment will  surprise  you  the  less  ;  as,  according  to  Horace,  to  be  a 
poet  does  not  depend  on  education — poeta  nascitur  non  fit.  The 
following  beautiful  lines,  therefore,  will  gratify  those  who  are  sen- 
sible to  the  delicate  and  sublime : — 

(1)  Vol.  ii.  p.  94. 


86 

«  Said  Paddy  with  a  ?iop. 

If  I  had  a  horse,  how'd  ye  sivap .?" 

After  having  thus  proved  that  he  had  not  perverted  our  doctrine 
of  confession,  (and  such  a  proof!)  he  returns  to  the  freedom  of 
the  press,  in  reference  to  which  I  beg  again  to  direct  the  reader  to 
my  last  speech.  I  am  content  with  the  judgment  which  people  of 
common  sense — runited  with  common  candour, — will  pronounce 
upon  the  objection  and  the  reply.  I  stated  a  fact,  in  regard  to  the 
printing  of  the  Bible,  viz.,  that  in  Italy,  where  all  are  Catholics, 
under  the  notice  and  with  the  approbation  of  popes,  and  cardinals, 
and  bishops,  no  less  than  forty  editions  of  the  whole  Bible,  in  the 
Italian  language,  had  been  published  and  in  circulation  before  the 
first  Protestant  Italian  copy  was  published.  I  stated  this  on  the  au- 
thority of  a  Protestant  minister^  the  Rev.  David  Clements,  in  his 
Dissertation  on  Ancient  Bibliography.  The  gentleman  says,  on 
his  own  ipse  dixit  authority,  that  the  statement  is  not  true!  He 
despises  the  labours  of  literary  research,  as  something  beneath  the 
dignity  of  an  *'  American  freeman."  You  state  an  historical  fact, 
on  the  authority  of  an  unimpeached  historian,  and  the  gentleman, 
because  he  never  heard  it  before,  tells  you  "  it  is  not  true,'^  with- 
out giving  a  single  reason  for  his  assertion.  Still  I  must  say, 
that,  under  this  head  of  the  discussion,  the  gentleman  makes  up 
for  the  want  of  knowledge  by  a  superabundance  of  curiosity.  h\ 
three  pages  of  his  corrected  speech,  1  have  taken  the  pains  to 
count  no  less  than  thirty  different  questions,  followed  by  as  many- 
notes  of  interrogations — a  proof  that  his  mind  is  at  length  smitten 
with  the  love,  or  the  lack  of  information. 

On  the  discovery  of  printing  as  an  art,  all  encouragement  was 
given  to  it  by  the  dignitaries  of  the  church.  It  was  employed  to 
multiply  copies  of  manuscripts  in  every  department  of  knowledge. 
The  Holy  Scriptures  were  the  first ;  the  Greek  and  Latin  classics, 
works  of  science,  and  elegant  literature,  followed  in  order.  This 
undeniable  fact  is  a  proof  that  printing  in  itself  is  by  no  means  op- 
posed to  the  doctrines  of  the  church.  But  when  the  press  became 
the  irresponsible  agent  of  mischief  in  the  hands  of  wicked  men, 
who  employed  it  to  corrupt  the  Scriptures,  to  excite  the  people  to 
sedition,  to  disseminate  falsehood  instead  of  truth ; — the  natural 
law  of  self-preservation,  both  in  church  and  state,  dictated  the  ne- 
cessity of  restricting  the  freedom  of  the  press  within  such  limits 
as  would  lender  it  compatible  with  the  safety  of  society.  The 
object  was  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  the  press,  and  protestant,  Pres- 
byterian, governments  were  as  prompt  and  as  unrelenting  in  pro- 
secuting this  object  as  Catholic  governments. 

The  Presbyterian  parliament  of  England,  on  the  12th  of  June, 
1643,  (just  two  days  before  the  calling  of  that  Westminster  Assem- 
bly which  framed  the  gentleman's  Confession  of  Faith,)  published 
an  act,  commanding  ^Hnguiry  after  private  presses ,  and  to  search 


87 

all  suspected  shops  and  warehouses  for  unlicensed  books  and 
pamphlets,  and  to  commit  offenders  against  this  order  to  prison, 
to  be  PUNISHED  as  the  parliament  shall  direct  J'"'  (1)  Even  at  this 
day,  Presbyterians  hinder,  as  much  as  they  can,  the  reading,  and, 
if  they  could,  would  hinder  the  printing  of  Catholic  books.  The 
Pope,  as  the  chief  visible  pastor  of  the  Catholic  Church,  has  a 
right,  and  it  is  his  duty,  to  warn,  exhort,  entreat  the  whole  flock, 
and  every  member  of  it,  against  the  danger  of  printing,  publishing, 
selling,  circulating,  or  reading  books,  calculated  to  destroy  their 
faith  or  corrupt  their  morals  ;  this  is  a  right  exercised  by  every 
Presbyterian  minister  in  the  country.  The  civil  restraints  and 
penalties  appointed  by  governments,  whether  Catholic  or  Pro- 
testant, are  chargeable  to  those  governments,  and  not  to  the  doc- 
trines which  they  profess.  The  Pope  has  no  authority  to  inflict 
civil  punishments  out  of  his  own  dominions.  I  pass,  then,  from 
this  head,  by  flinging  back  the  consequences  which  the  gentleman 
affects  to  draw  from  my  arguments,  but  which  are  to  be  ascribed, 
not  to  my  language,  but  to  his  garbling  and  misrepresentation  of 
it.  When  he  will  condescend  to  dispense  with  abusive  declama- 
tion, and  substitute  something  like  positive  information,  I  shall  be 
prepared  to  close  with  him.  The  gentleman  can  hardly  expect  to 
impose  on  his  audience  by  these  flourishes  of  stump  oratory  and 
grandiloquent  assertion,  when  the  question  in  debate  is  a  matter 
of  historical  evidence — a  positive  matter  of  fact. 

As  to  his  assertion  in  his  former  speech,  "  that  the  Bible,  in 
whatever  idiom  written,  is  prohibited" — I  said,  and  I  repeat,  that 
it  is  false. — That  it  is  not  warranted  by  the  original.  The  index 
has  it,  "  Biblia  vulgari  quocunque  idiomate  conscripta."  There- 
fore, it  was  not  in  "  whatever  idiom,^^  as  the  gentleman  said,  but 
in  whatever  "  vernacular  idiom."  Again,  in  the  fourth  rule  of  the 
index,  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  vulgar  tongue  is  expressly 
allowed,  under  the  prescribed  qualifications  set  by  the  index. 
Therefore,  the  statement,  that  it  was  "  prohibited,"  even  in  the 
vernacular  idiom,  is  false.  Again,  still  the  authority  of  the  index 
was  never  recognized  beyond  the  limits  of  a  few  provinces.  And, 
therefore,  even  if  the  gentleman's  statement  were  true,  where  the 
index  prevailed,  which  it  was  not,  as  we  have  seen,  it  would  be, 
and  is  totally  false,  in  regard  to  all  the  other  Catholics  of  the 
earth. 

The  gentleman  concludes  with  a  republication  of  the  third 
canon  of  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council,  enacted  specifically  against 
the  Albigenses.  Having  been  obliged  to  convict  him  of  garbling 
this  canon  in  the  written  Controversy,  I  shall  not  now  take  the 
trouble  to  examine  his  translation.  It  is  probable  that  he  follows 
the  '*  faithful  Cramp ;"  and  if  so,  we  know  what  is  to  be  expected. 
But  there  arc  a  few  questions  involved  in  the  subject.     1.  Who 

(1)  Neal,  Hist,  of  Purit.,  voL  iii.  p.  72. 


88 

were  these  Albigenses  ?  2.  What  was  their  doctrine  ?  3.  What 
were  its  effects  on  society  ?  4.  What  was  the  Lateran  Council  ? 
and,  5.  What  was  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  canon  in  ques- 
tion? The  Albigenses  were  the  religious  descendants  of  the 
Manichaean  heresy.  Their  principal  establishment  was  in  Bul- 
garia. Thence  their  horrible  doctrines  were  translated  into  France, 
Italy  and  Spain,  in  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries.  They  were 
called  by  different  names,  Poblicoli,  Paterini,  Cathari,  Bogomili, 
Zurlupins,  Beghardi,  Brethren  of  the  Free  Spirit,  &c.;  but  their 
general  appellation  was  Albigenses.  Their  doctrines  were,  that 
there  are  two  first  principles  or  deities  ;  one  of  them  the  creator 
of  devils,  of  animal  flesh,  of  wine,  of  the  Old  Testament,  &c.;  the 
other,  the  author  of  good  spirits,  the  New  Testament,  &c.;  that 
unnatural  lusts  were  lawful,  but  not  the  propagation  of  the 
human  species.  (I) 

These  deluded  and  abandoned  people,  supported  by  the  Counts 
of  Thoulouse,  Comminges  and  Foix,  had  set  their  sovereigns  at 
defiance,  carrying  fire  and  sword  through  theii  dominions,  slaugh- 
tering their  subjects  without  distinction  of  age  or  sex,  and  by 
their  conduct,  as  well  as  their  doctrine,  waging  open  war  against 
Christianity,  morality,  society  and  human  nature.  As  far  back 
as  the  year  1022,  Robert,  King  of  France,  had  been  obliged  to 
take  measures  of  safety  against  their  doctrines  and  their  crimes. 
The  infamous  name,  which,  even  at  this  day,  is  given  to  unnatural 
lusts,  is  derived  from  their  appellation — "  Paterini  et  Bugares  de 
quorum  errore  malo  tacere  quam  loqui."  (2)  Knowing  the  errors 
and  the  infamy  of  the  Albigenses,  the  man  who  is  acquainted 
with  ecclesiastical  history,  must  feel  amused  or  shocked  to  behold 
them  ranked,  as  they  sometimes  are,  by  ignorant  advocates  on  the 
gentleman's  side  of  the  question,  among  the  religious  progenitors 
of  Protestantism. 

We  must  now  turn  to  the  Council  of  Lateran.  The  errors  of 
the  Albigenses  were  referred  to,  and  condemned  in  the  first  and 
second  canons.  The  object  of  the  third  canon,  now  in  question, 
was  to  check  the  spread  of  those  errors,  and  the  progress  of 
slaughter  and  desolation,  which  the  Albigenses,  on  every  oppor- 
tunity, for  two  hundred  years  before,  had  not  ceased  to  perpetrate. 
It  Was  also  to  maintain  the  rights  of  sovereigns  against  the  factious 
lords,  who  encouraged  the  excesses  of  the  Albigenses,  for  their 
own  political  puiposes.  Besides  the  bishops  and  abbots,  there 
were  at  the  council  ambassadors  representing  the  temporal  sove- 
reigns of  Germany,  Constantinople,  England,  France,  Hungary, 
Arragon,  Sicily,  Jerusalem  and  Cyprus ;  besides  those  of  many 
other  inferior  states.     Now  the  wording  of  the  canon  shows  its 

(1)  See  Bossuet's  Variations,  Book  XI. — Acta  Concil.  iii.  Lat. — Fleury, 
Histoire  Eccles.  L.  58,  §  54.— Mosheim,  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  338,  339— et 
alibi  passim. 

(3)  Matt.  Paris,  An.  1344. 


89 

limitation;  first,  to  the  Albigensian  heretics  alone;  and,  secondly, 
to  the  "  secular  poivers  presenf"*  at  the  council.  The  gentleman 
on  a  former  occasion  thought  it  advisable,  in  making  the  quota- 
tion, to  suppress  the  word  '■'■present.''''  Having  been  exposed  for 
this,  he  now  inserts  it,  and  thereby  .mars  his  whole  purpose, 
which  was  to  extend  the  meaning  of  the  text  to  all  secular 
powers,  whether  absent  or  jiresent.  Now  the  fact  is,  that  so  far 
from  its  being  a  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  so  far  from 
its  being  an  enactment  of  universal  application,  it  never  was  put 
in  force  against  any  other  heretics  besides  the  Albigenses,  nor 
even  against  them,  except  in  the  departments  of  the  three  counts 
mentioned  above,  who  encouraged  the  outrages  of  these  enemies 
of  the  human  species.  Its  origin  was  owing  to  the  crimes  of 
those  against  whom  it  was  specifically  and  exclusively  enacted. 
And  it  is  dishonest  to  charge  on  Catholics  of  the  present  day,  a 
responsibility,  which  must  rest,  in  time  and  in  eternity,  on  those 
who  were  concerned  in  its  enactment.  But  in  all  this  I  have  ad- 
mitted, for  sake  of  argument,  that  it  was  enacted  by  the  council, 
and  this  I  have  done,  because,  as  respects  the  point  at  issue,  it  is 
of  no  importance  by  whom  it  was  enacted. 

The  fact  is,  however,  that  the  best  critics,  who  have  not  been 
under  the  influence  of-  the  anti-Popery  mania,  have  regarded  this 
canon  as  spurious — an  interpolation  in  the  genuine  acts  of  the  coun- 
cil. In  the  Mazarine  copy  of  the  council,  it  is  not  found  in  either  the 
Greek  or  Latin.  In  the  earliest  editions  of  the  councils,  it  is  not 
found.  For  two  hundred  and  twenty  years  after  the  council,  this 
canon  was  not  known- «5  one  of  its  enactments.  In  the  first  edition 
of  the  councils,  by  Crabbe  the  Franciscan,  published  by  John 
Merlin  in  1530,  it  is  not  found.  The  first  and  only  person  who 
discovered  it  was  John  Cochleus,  in  1537.  By  him  it  was  sent 
to  John  Rincus  of  Cologne,  and  published  in  Crabbe's  second 
edition  of  1538.  Some  have  ascribed  it  to  Pope  Innocent  him- 
self. Some  have  regarded  it  as  a  fragment  of  the  imperial  con- 
stitutions of  Germany,  probably  the  work  of  Frederick  II.,  whose 
zeal  against  heretics  and  rebellious  barons  is  well  known.  In 
support  of  these  conjectures,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  mention  such 
authorities  as  Platina,  Rigordus,  Gregory  IX.,  Matthew  Paris,  (1) 
Nanclarus,  (2)  the  monk  Godfrey,  &c.,  all  of  whom  maintain 
that,  whatever  was  its  origin,  it  w^s  not  an  act  of  the  council. 
But  as .  the  geatleman  is,  probably,  not  acquainted  with  these 
authors,  and  probably  never  will  be,  I  shall  refer  him  to  Dqpin, 
vol.  x.  Bibliot.  p.  i04;  or  if  he  refuses  the  authority  of  this  half 
Protestant  writer,  I  refer  him  to  Collier's  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p. 
424.  Collier  was  a  Protestant,  but  a  learned  one ;  he  pronounces 
this  canon  spurious.     And  the  gentleman's  authority,  in  opposi- 

(1)  Ad.  An.  1215. 

(2)  Chron.  Ad.  An.  1215. 

12 


90 

tion  to  that  of  Dr.  Collier,  would  not  weigh  a  feather,  in  regard 
to  a  matter  of  history.  But  at  all  events,  Catholics. of  the  present 
day,  have  no  more  to  do  with  wiiat  is  called  the  third  canon  of 
the  Council  of  Lateran,  than  with  the  burning  of  Servetus. 

In  view  of  these  historical  facts,  of  which  the  gentleman  seems 
to  be  most  blessedly  ignorant,  I  think  he  cuts  a  very  ridiculous 
figure,  when,  in  relation  to  this  canon,  he  breaks  out  in  the  fol- 
lowing strains  of  impassioned  eloquence.     "  Such  is  the  Magna 
Charta  of  Papal  rights — the  great  infallible  Black  Letter  Com- 
tnentary  on  the  power  of  the  priesthood — the  germ  of  the  inqui- 
sition— the  tender  mercies  of  the  only  true  church,  out  of  which 
there  is  no  salvation;  in  which  t/iere  is  no  liberty.     In  vain  did 
Draco  zvrite   his   laws   in  blood — or  Heathen  Rome  legislate 
against  Christians.     This  is  the  masterpiece  of  spiritual  and 
temporal  despotisin.''^     Here  the  gentleman  gets  out  of  breath, 
and,  as  he  says,  "  needs  a  little  respite."     He  is  just  able,  before 
sitting  down,  to  avow  his  ignoraiice  of  the  difference  between 
"  docirine  and  discipUne.^^     He  should  have   reflected  on  this 
state  of  his  mind  before  he  rushed  into  the  discussion.     If  he  is 
serious  in  wishing  to  know  what  doctrine  is,  I  refer  him  to  his  own 
definition.     It  is  any  "  tenet  of  faith  or  morals  ivhich  a  denomi- 
■  nation  teaches,  as  having  been  revealed  by  Almighty  God." 
Let  him  consult  larger  treatises  of  theology,. when  his  leisure  will 
permit.     He  had  bound  himself  in  relation  to  any  disputed  point, 
to  show  that  it  was  taught  by. a  General  Council,  or  the  bull  of  a 
Pope,  as  a  "doctrine" — i.  e.  as.  a  tenet  of  faith  and  morals  re- 
vealed  by  Almighty  God,^^  or  else  not  to  adduce  it  in  argument. 
You  all  have  seen  how  he  redeems  his  pledge.     You  all  have 
seen,  that  he  insists  on  making  Catholics  admit  as  a  doctrine  of 
their  religion,  wliatever  nonsense  or  impiety  he  may  think  proper 
to  ascribe  to  them.     Now,  it  so  happens,  that  neither  Pope  nor 
General  Council  possesses  this  right.     They  have  the  right  to 
attest  and  explain  what  is  the  doctrine,  but  they  have  no  right  to 
create  and  impose  new  tenets.     The  gentleman,  however,  is  de- 
termined to  make  us  hold  whatever  doctrines  he  pleases.     He 
first  repeats  the  calumnies  that  were  invented  for  political  pur- 
poses, in  days  of  bigotry  and  rapine,  and  then  he  .denounces  us 
for  having  been  calumniated.     It  is  with  this  view,  that  the  slan- 
ders of  every  outcast  from  our  communion,  are  put  on  file  against 
us.     It  is  with  this  view  that  De  Pratt  is  quoted.     I  make  the 
gentleman  a  present  of  him.     Having  the  "  faithful  Cramp,"  and 
the  infidel  renegade,  De  Pratt,  as  his  monitors,  the  gentleman  is 
in  a  fair  way  of  being  correctly  informed  on  the  subject  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Catholic  religion.  Still,  even  under  their  guidance, 
I  would  advise  him  not  to  write  any  more  Latin  for  the  fathers  of 
the  Council  of  Trent. 


91 


"  Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion^  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty?^'' 


AFFIRMATIVE  III.— MR.  BRECKINRIDGE. 

Mr.  President: — The  reason  why  I  was  so  desirous  to  have  the 
name  of  the  anonymous  writer  in  the  "Catholic  Diary, '^  (better 
called  Noctuary,)  is  tlie  same  which  makes  my  Reverend  friend  so 
anxious  to  conceal  it.  Its  loud,  long  praises,  of  the  Rev.  John 
Hughes,  (these  praises  it  was  that  I  said  might  seem  irony,  they 
were  so  unapt,  had  they  not  been  meant  for  emphatic,)  make  it  a 
curious  document — since  there  is  now  so  much  reason  to  believe 
him  the  author  of  it.  I  am  happy  to  say,  that  this  society,  in  a  dig- 
nified letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Diary,  has  exposed  the  falsehoods 
of  said  piece-T-and  demanded  the  publication  of  their  reply  to  it. 
His  refusal  to  do  so  is  the  proper,  as  it  is  the  expressive,  jinaJc  of 
this  matter. 

There  is  one  very  curious  circumstance  about  this  piece,  which  is 
worthy  of  notice,  before  dismissal.  The  author  says,  "  /  called  on 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  the  next  evening,  to  obtain  a  copy  of  the  con- 
ditions on  which  the  debate  is  to  be  continued,  which  I  send  herewith.'^ 
Having  stated  that  the  "  Presbyterian  Religion"  was  to  be  examined 
as  the  first  question,  he  adds,  on  Mr.  Hughes's  information — "  The 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  of 'the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
America,  shall  be  a  proof  on  the  other  side.''''  Every  member  of  the 
committee  of  arrangements  knows  this  to  be  the  case ; — so  does  the 
whole  society. — And  yet  the  gentleman  ventures  to  assert,  '^  that  the 
question  does  not  limit  his  investigation  to  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States,  and  to  that  in  connexion  ivith  the  General  As- 
sembly." I  appeal  to  the  written  rules,  signed  by  the  gentleman 
himself,  in  contradiction  of  his  assertion.  "  Oh,  honour!  thou  hast 
fed  to  brutish  beasts." 

His  reason  for  this  course  is  very  obvious.  He  says — ''  The  gen- 
tleman admits  that  persecution  was  a  joart  of  Presbyterianism,  in  all 
other  countries."  If  so,  then  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  I  would  de- 
fend it?  I  did  say  that  our  forefathers  in  different  ages,  even  Calvin 
himself,  had  some  false  views  of  religious  liberty  :  and  were  to  a 
certain  extent  intolerant;  and  that  so  far  I  condemned  them — and 
that  so  far  our  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  differed 
from  them.     The  gentleman  knows  it  to  be  so.     He  finds  nothing 


92 

in  us  to  condemn, — and  flies  to  other  churciies,  and  other  lanjls,  in 
quest  of  matter.  This  is,  in  fact,  giving  up  the  question,  as  to 
PresbT/icriiifis.  He  says  truly,  therefore,  when  quoting  from  the 
*'  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church" — a  denun- 
ciation of  the  American  Constitution — "  the  gentleman  will  tell  you 
these  doctrines  are  not  of  the  Presbyterians."  They  are  not  our 
doctrines. — Far,  far  from  them.  When  the  gentleman,  a  little  be- 
fore, charges  me  with  *•  affecting  to  he  an  idolater  of  the  American 
Constitution,"  he  answers  the  question.  When  he  asks — "  Do  not 
these  kindred  denominations  exchange  pulpits?"  I  answer — No. 

But  we  are  now  looking  a  little  into  popery,  which  is  unchange- 
able, the  same  every  icherc,  and  in  every  age.  It  cannot  change. 
And  if,  as  he  says,  we  may  relapse  into  the  intolerance  of  our  fathers^ 
Rome  can  never  {by  her  own  confession),  be  reformed  from  her  -per- 
secuting spirit.  When  we  come  to  the  Presbyterian  question,  it 
will  be  the  time  to  show  that  there  are  almost  as  many  errors  as 
paragraphs  in  the  gentleman's  attacks.  But  he  cannot  divert  me, 
with  all  his  arts,  from  probing  popery.  I  know  it  is  a  sore,  and 
therefore  sensitive,  spot.  But  he  must  endure  it; — for  it  is  not  I 
*'  who  have  come,  and  rudely  thrust  myself  between  him  and  his  rela- 
tion with  (to)  this  society."  It  is  he  who  came,  with  unmanly  officious- 
ness,  and  thrust  himself  between  the  youthful  disputants;— it  is  he 
who  quailed  before  the  Rev.  Mr.  M'Calla,  when  he  unexpectedly  met 
him,  on  that  occasion  ; — it  is  he  who  retreated  from  a  half  finished 
debate  of  a  former  day — who,  with  the  constancy  of  a  martyr  de- 
clined my  reiterated  call,  for  years — and  wlrom  I  now  meet  by  in- 
vitation of  those  very  youths.  He  who  has  vitiated  the  stenogra- 
pher's report,  after  being  beaten  in  oral  debate; — he  who  yet  refused 
to  discuss  it  or«//?/  again — who  was  on  the  eve  of  a  retreat  to 
Mexico,  had  not  the  publication  of  the  debate  been  pressed  at  the 
point  of  his  honour,  as  well  as  the  hazard  of  his  cause  ;*  and  who, 
(after  six  months  of  evasion  and  delay,)  will  now  defeat  the  publica- 
tion of  tliis  debate,  without  an  almost  superhuman  patience,  sagacity 
and  firmness,  on  the  part  of  your  publishing  committee. 

Sir,  you  have  heard  the  audacity  and  coarseness  of  his  personal 
attacks.  No  christian,  no  gentleman,  can  retaliate  such  language. 
Here,  at  least,  I  allow  myself  wholly  his  inferior.  I  yield  the  i)alm 
of  blackguardism  to  him.  He  has  entirely  the  advantage  of  me 
here.  1  mak>e  no  pretensions  to  the  title  which  he  has  conferred  on 
me,  "  of  the  Chesterfield  of  the  Presbyterian  Church."  But,  sir, 
when  we  hear  him  wielding  with  such  coarse  and  vulgar  imperti- 
nence, the  terms'  ^'falsehood,''  "  fabrication,"  '*  artifice,"  "  forgery," 
ct  id  omne  genus,  1  cannot  but  be  reminded  of  the  origin,  habits, 
breeding,  and  pretensions  of  the  Jesuit  priesthood,  as  the  true  ex- 
planation of  the  fact,  that  neither  Chesterfield  nor  Elijah  has  large- 
ly cast  his  mantle  over  thtm.  The  fact  is,  they  are  used  to  so  un- 
questioned a  supremacy,  that  they  cannot  brook  contradiction,  or 
dissent.     Their   religion   deifies  each   pope ;   and  each   priest  is  a 


93 

parish-pope,  a  "  household-god,"  without  the  tiara  and  the  temporal 
sword.  The  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  declares,  "  that  in 
the  minister  of  God,  who  sits  in  the  tribunal  of  penance,  as  his  legi- 
timate judge,  he  (the  penitent)  venerates  the  power  and  person  (awful 
profanity!)  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ:"  and  ^^  were  even  the  lives  of 
her  ministers  debased  by  crime,  they  are  still  within  her  pale,  and 
therefore  lose  no  part  of  the  power  with  lohich  her  ministry  invests 
them:'  (\) 

The  canon  law  makes  it  sacrilege  to  strike  a  priest;  and  forbids 
every  one  from  bringing  a  bishop  or  priest  before  a  secular  judge 
for  accusation  of  crime; — it  exempts  them  from  taxes,  Zlc.  &lc. 
No  wonder,  then,  a  protestant  heretic  is  so  illy  borne  with — and  so 
much  impatience  discovered,  under  the  freedom  of  American  in- 
quiry, and  at  the  tribunal  of  public  opinion.  But,  still,  we  must 
advance  with  the  discussion,  and  we  shall  set  down  every  ungentle- 
manly  epithet,  as  so  niuc"h  conceded  to  unansiverable  argument. 
These  remarks  will  not  appear  too  strong,  when  the  gentlemen  of 
the  Society  recal  the  following  very  insulting  sentence  of  the  reverend 
gentleman, — "  I  had,  indeed,  charged  the  gentleman,  not  only  with 
misunderstanding  our  doctrine,  but  also,  with  perverting  the'lan- 
guage  in  which  it  was  expressed.  By  way  of  vindicating  himself 
from  this  charge,  he  makes  a  shoiv  of  appealing  to  the  original  Latin. 
*  Is  it  not  written,'  says  he,  *  pcenam  quam  opportet  pro  illis  poeni — 
tentibus  imponere.'  And  what  will  be  the  readers  disgust,  to  learn 
that  this  beautiful  specimen  of  Latinity,put  forth  as  a  quotation  from 
the  Council  of  Trent,  is  a  fabrication,  a  forgery."  If  the  gen- 
tleman were  ignorant,  we  might  account  for,  if  not  excuse,  the  reck- 
less audacity  of  this  charge.  But  he  is  not  ignorant.  I  leave  it  for 
you,  gentlemen,  to  imagine  a  reason  for  such  a  charge,  especially 
when  you  hear  that  every  loord  of  my  quotation  is  in  the  5th  chap- 
ter, I4lh  session,  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  I  have  been  at  the 
trouble  to  get  another  edition  of  the  decrees  of  the  Council,  which 
exactly  agrees  with  n>^  former  citation.  The  passage  adduced  by 
me,  is  part  of  a  very  long  sentence,  from  which  I  extracted  that  for 
which  the  proof  called.  I  own  it  is  barbarous  Latin.  It  appears  in 
the  following  connexion,  viz: — Ut  de  gravitate  ^eardSBSota.  recte 
cersere  possint,  ei  pcenam  opportat  pro  illis  pcEnitentibus  imponere. 

We 'may  better  now  explain  a  sentence  in  a  former  speech  of  the 
gentleman's,  that  not  one  in  ten  thousand  of  the  people  understood 
the  language  in  which  the  decrees,  &c.  ^-c.  of  his  church  were 
written.  Hence  he  ventures,  trusting  to  this  ignorance,  to  vitiate 
my  quotations  and  assail  my  honesty.  But  happily,  there  are  some 
men  in  the  community  beside  the  Jesuits  who  can  read  a  little  Latin, 
and  who  have  in  their  hands  the  decrees  of  the  councils.  And  now 
we  ask,  where  does  the  charge  of  "fabrication"  rest,  and  on  whom 
must  the  "  reader's  disgust"  fasten  ? 

(1)  Eng.  Trans.,  pp.  242,  95. 


94 

There  is  one  part  of  this  tirade  which  is  truly  diverting.  He  says 
of  the  passage  quoted  by  n)e,  it  is  "  a  phrase  which  is  a  most  palpable 
violation  of  all  syntax;'"'  and  at  tlie  close  of  his  potential  harangue 
adds,  "  I  would  advise  him  not  to  write  any  more  Latin  for  the  Fa- 
thers of  Trenty  It  certainly  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  infallible  fa- 
thers  of  the  Council  of  Trent  should  have  written  bad  Latin  ;  and 
'*  the  Dutch  have  taken  Holland,"  when  the  son  thus  laughs  at  the 
syntax  of  the  ins^'ned  fathers.  How  he  will  settle  this  matter  with 
his  master  at  Rome  I  am  at  a  loss  to  determine.  But  his  corrections 
are  two  hundred  years  too  late ;  and  it  is  one  of  many  proofs  that  the 
gentleman  has  arisen  on  the  earth  in  the  wrong  age.  But  I  think  he 
will  not  venture  again  "■to  make  Latin  for  the  fathers  of  the  Council 
of  Trent ;"  and  from  this  whole  case  we  learn  how  far  to  trust  the  as- 
sertions of  one  who  continues  to  illustrate  the  papal  rhaxim,  that  ^  the 
endjustifies  the  means.''  You  may  measure  his  charges  of"  artifice," 
"  fabrication,"  &c.  &/C.  by  this  specimen,  and  you  will  clearly  see 
that  he  not  only  considers  such  things  "  venial  sins,"  but  that  any 
man  who  will  practice  these  arts,  shall  still  find  himself  a  learner  in 
the  deeper  counsels  of  my  ?nore  practised  friend. 

I  have  been  thinking  that  it  might  be  well  to  divide  my  answers 
to  his  speeches  into  two  parts — one  for  the  irrelative  and  indecent 
of  the  gentleman's  remarks,  viz  :  the  Billingsgate,  the  abusive,  the 
"  pathetic,"  the  provocative,  &c. ;  the  other  for  the  argumentative 
part :  or  perhaps  if  we  could  give  him  an  entire  evening  to  disgorge, 
he  might  feel  better  after  it,  and  save  us  the  trouble  of  so  often  ex- 
posing him. 

There  is  another  sample  of  candour  and  logic  blended,  which  I 
must  not  omit  to  notice.  He  says,  in  reference  to  the  HI  canon  of 
IV  Lateran,  **  Now  the  wording  of  the  canon  shows  its  limitation 
to  the  secular  powers  present  at  the  council."  Now,  so  far  is  this 
from  being  true,  that  there  is  not  a  schoolboy  in  America  who  has 
read  the  colloquies  of  Cordery  that  does  not  know  better.  The  passage 
in  the  original  reads  thus: — Damnati  vero,  saecularibus  potestatibus 
praesentibus  aut  eorum  balivis  relinqqantur  animadversione  debita 
puniendi.  But  being  condemned,  let  them  (the  heretics)  be  left  to 
the  secular  powers  present,  or  to  their  bailiffs  to  be  punished  by  due 
animadversion.  He  charges  me  with  fraudulenly  omitting  the  word 
"  present,"  and  for  this  reason,  that  I  thus  make  the  persecuting 
canon  apply  to  all  secular  powers,  whereas,  he  says,  it  applies  only 
to  those  '*  present"  in  the  council.  Can  the  gentleman  be  in  earnest 
in  this  translation  ?  (The  charge  I  despise.)  The  decree  is  defining 
the  p/ace  and  ihe  poiaers  for  punishing  ''heretics'"'  at  a  future  day  ; 
and  orders  that  the  secular  powers  in  wTiose  territory  they  should  be 
found,  should  punish  them.  The  terms  saecularibus  potestatibus 
praesentibus  are  equivalent  to  *'  the  powers  that  be."  Just  below, 
in  the  same  canon,  the  same  *' poioers""  are  named  without  ''  presenti- 
bus,""  and  Caranza,  the  popish  author,  in  giving  the  contents  ,of  this 
canon,  thus  writes  : — Punitio  haereticorum  saecularibus  potestatibus 


95 

committfnda.  ''  The  punishment  of  heretics  to  be  committed  to  the 
secular  potver.'"'  *'  JPreseutibiis'^  is  omitted;  and  in  a  just  and  pure 
translation  not  the  least  change  in  the  sense  is  made  by  its  presence 
or  absence.  Still  the  omisi>ion  was  an  inadvertence,  for  I  am  accus- 
tomed to  translate  this  barbarous  Latin  in  almost  a  barbarously  literal 
way,  knowing  that  I  have  to  do  with  a  Jesuit. 

But  cdloiving  that  "  praesentibus"  does  refer  to  the  powers  pr-e- 
sent  in  the  council,  has  not  the  gentleman  told  us  that  the  council 
embraced  "  ambassadors  representing  the  temporal  sovereigns  of 
Germany,  Constantinople,  England,  France,  &c.  or  as  he  says,  in  a 
former  controversy,  "  a  general  congress  of  Christendom  in  which 
the  states  and  sovereigns  were  represented  for  the  purpose  of  confer^ 
ring  together  on  such  matters  as  concerned  the  general  welfare^ 

Now,  v.'ho  was  not  represented  here  ?  Were  not  the  '*  secular 
powers  present  from  all  Christendom?^''  Then  wherever  the  decree 
went  it  would  find  the  "  bailiffs'"'  o{  those  very  minions  of  the  Pope 
who,  in  this  "  mingled  theocracy  and  civil  policy,"  "  this  church  and 
state'''  in  which  the  "Pope  was  head,  had  allowed  heresy  to  be  de- 
nounced as  a  "civil  offence"  and  as  such  to  be  devoted  by  the 
church  of  Rome  (the  pope  presiding),  and  through  "all  Christendom" 
doomed  to  extirpation  by  fire  and  sword. 

These  dexterous  G^oxi^  o^  h\s  are  made  to  evade  the  powerful  proof 
of  Roman  Catholic  persecution  found  in  the  terrible  canon  of  the  IV 
Lateran,  quoted  by  me  at  the  close  of  my  last  speech.  He  first 
tries  to  distort  its  meaning,  by  telling  us  that  its  force  is  "limited," 
by  the  "  wording  of  the  canon,"  "  to  the  Albigensian  heresy  alone." 
It  is  truly  incredible  that  he  could  believe  so  with  the  following 
words  staring  him  in  the  face  in  the  very  first  sentence  : — "  We  ex- 
communicate  and  anathematize  every  heresy  {oryinem  haeresi?n) 
extolling  itself  against  this  holy  orthodox  Catholic  faith,  which  (faith) 
ive  before  expounded,  condemning  all  heretics  by  whatsoever  name 
called.''^  If  these  terms  have  any  limitations  save  heresy  and 
earth,  I  cannot  see  them.  "  All  heresy ,''''  "  by  whatever  name  called.'^ 
But  I  ask,  what  if  it  were  limited  to  i\\e  Albigenses  ?  Admit  it  to  be 
so.  What  does  the  gentleman  gain  ?  Why  this.  The  infallible 
council,  headed  by  the  Pope,  only  persecuted  one  people — not  all.  But 
what  right  had  they  to  persecute  one  people?  Or  '\{ one,  why  not  all, 
when  said  church  shall  please  1  What  right  had  Catholics  to  punish 
them  with  death  for  their  opinions?  Who  put  the  sword  into  the 
Pope's  hand?  Who  formed  this  "  Congress  of  Christendom  ?"  The 
Pope  called  it,  headed  it,  drew  up  all  the  canons,  and  then  confirmed 
them,  published  them,  and  ordered  their  execution  in  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  and  by  the  authority  of  God  !  Yet  the 
gentleman  dares,  in  the  light  of  this  age  and  land,  to  defend  this  the- 
ocracy and  fearful  persecution  ! 

But  he  says,  "  the  Albigenses  were  very,  very  wicked,  not  only  in 
their  doctrines  but  their  liv^,  by  lusts  and  bloodshed.  There  are 
almost  as  many  falsehoods  as  sentences  in  the  account  he  gives  of 


96. 

this  persecuted  people.  You  will  remember,  gcntletnen,  that  he 
'produced  Mosheim's  Testimc>ny,  and  read,  from  his  3d  vol.,  page 
283,  some  sentences  calling  the  Albigenses  "  ivrctchcd  enthusiasts,'' 
charging  them  with  '^  abominable  lusts,'"  '*  going  naked,"  &lc.  &lc. 
I  was  .much  shocked  at  the  statement ;  declared  it  false,  and  a  per- 
version of  the  historian  ;  and  promised  to  ex()Ose  it  as  such.  I  had 
hoped  to  find  it  a  forgery  of  the  Jesuits;  and  thus  the  gentleman 
would  escape.  But  as  you  will  remember,  on  turning  to  the  passage, 
it  appeared,  that  the  gentleman  had  omitted  the  real  name  of  the 
people  denounced  by  Mosheim  (though  but  one  sentence  above) ,  and 
had  made  him  say  all  those  shocking  things  of  the  poor  Albigenses. 
Now,  how  strange  must  it  seem,  when  I  tell  you  that  the  historian 
was  there  speaking  of  one  of  the  sects  classed  with  a  people  *'  called 
Brethren  of  the  Free  Spirit."  Of  the  Albigenses  he  gives  a  most 
opposite  account  ;  and  in'a  different  part  of  the  work.  This  author 
says  :(2)  they  were  the  same  with  the  Pauliciaiis;  that  "even  their 
worst  enemies  achnoiclcdged  the  sincerity  of  their  piety  ;  but  they  were 
blackened  by  accusations  lohich  were  evidently  false ;  and  that  the  opin- 
ions for  tohich  they  lo  ere  punished,  differed  widely  from  the  Manichccan 
system.'^  He  adds,  in  ihe  same  page,  a  narrative  of  the  character, 
vices,  and  errors  of  those  whom  my  Reverend  friend  made  the  slan- 
dered and  perverted  writer  call  Albigenses.  I  pronounce  him  a 
falsifier  of  Mosheim,  and  call  on  him  to  clear  his  character.  If  he  will 
hear  more  of  Mosheim,  the  historian  goes  on  to  say  :(3)  "  During 
the  whole  of  this  century  (the  13th)  the  Roman  pontijfs  carried  on 
the  most  barbarous  and  inhuman  persecution  against  those  whom  they 
branded  with  the  denomination  of  heretics;  i.  e.,  against  all  those 
who  called  their  pretended  authority  and  jurisdiction  in  question,  or 
taught  doctrines  different  from  those  which  were  adopted  and  propa- 
gated by  the  Church  of  Romc.'^  Also, (4)  he  says  of  the  Inquisition, 
"  That  nothing  might  be  wanting  to  render  this  spiritual  court  for- 
midable and  tremendous,  the  Roman  pontiffs  persuaded  the  Eu- 
ropean princes,  and  more  especially  Frederic  11."  (the  very  prince 
on  whom  our  priest  would  fasten  tlie  persecuting  canon  in  question, 
and  of  whom  he  says,  "  whose  zeal  against  heretics  and  rebellious 
barons  is  well  knoion,")  "  and  Lewis  IX.,  king  of  France,  to  enact 
the  most  barbarous  laws  against  heretics,  and  to  commit  to  the 
flames,  by  the  ministry  of  public  justice,  those  who  were  pronounced 
such  by  the  inquisitors."  When  the  proper  time  comes,  I  will  show', 
by  Catholic  historians,  that  there  is  not  one  word  of  truth  in  what 
the  gentleman  has  said  of  the  Albigenses. 

But  allow  it  true.  I  ask  a^ain  :  What  has  the  head  of  Christ^s 
church,  and  the  holy  council,  to  do  with  burning  heretics,  with  oaths 
of  allegiance,  with  ruling,  punishing,  deposing  princes?  The  gen- 
tleman's argument  is  :  the  Albigenses  were  wicked  and  murderous ; 
therefore  the  church  might  lay  hold  on  them.     Princes  were  repre- 

'  ■    ■m 
(2)  Vol.  ii.  p.  580-2.  (3)  Vol.  ill.  p.  266.  (4)  P.  272. 


97 

sented  in  the  council,  and  these  heretics  had  devastated  their  realms; 
therefore  the  church  had  a  right  to  order  a  crusade  against  them, 
and  promise  a  '*  full  remission  of  sitis  "  to  all  who  fought  against 
them,  and  to  depose  and  punish  all  who  refused.  His  argument 
admits  that  the  Church  of  Rome  has  been,  and  of  course,  as  she 
can?iot  change,  is  ix  persecuting  church. 

But  the  gentleman  says  this  dreadful  canon  hsiS  nothing  to  do  ivith 
doctrine.     "  It  is  so  far  from  having  anything  to  do  with  doctrine,"" 
&/C.     Ah!  it  is  only  discipline.     It  is  hard  to  see  (as  he  tells  us) 
how  it  is  doctrine  in  Scotland  to  cut  off  men's  ears  for  heresy,  and 
only  discipline  in  the  Catholic  church  to  cut  off  men's  heads  for  the 
same  thing  ?     Voov  discipline!  she  has  a  hard  time  of  it.     She  is 
the  scapegoat  of  all  her  infallible  sister  doctrine's  sins.     No  wonder 
the  gentleman  refused  so  stoutly  to  discuss  the  hearings  of  Catholic 
discipline.     But  it  will  not  all  avail.     That  part  of  discipline  which 
flows  from  doctrine,  and  for  whose  exercise  the  doctrine  is  pleaded, 
is  doctrine  in  amount.     For  example  :  it  is  a  part  of  discipline  to 
take  the  cup  from  the  people  in  the  Lord's  Supper.     But  it  rests  on 
the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence.     So  here  :  It  is  a  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  that  heretics  are  in  the  power  of  the  church,  and 
to  be  punished  by  her.     This  decree  announces  the  same  doctrine, 
and  directs  its  application.     The  gentleman,  in  a  former  controversy, 
(such  writers  need  good  memories)  said,  *'  The  secular  representa- 
tives had  nothing  to  do  with  the  definition  of  doctrines  and  morals.''^ 
But  the  canon  says  :  *'  This  holy,  orthodox,  catholic  faith  which  we 
have   before   expounded."     Of  course,   it   was   the   pure   doctrine- 
Making  council  with  no  secular  admixture.     And  then  the  decree 
proceeds  to  announce  the  sum  of  such  doctrines  as  that  those  who 
"extol  themselves  against  the  Catholic  church"  are  heretics:  that 
God  has  empowered   the  church  to  punish  heretics  with  spiritual 
pains  and  penalties,  and  to  order  the  civil  power  to  superadd  tem- 
poral ones  ;  that  the  civil  power  must  be  bound  by  oath  to  do  it ;  that 
if  it  refuse  it  is  to   be  excommunicated,  and  the  subjects  of  said 
power  absolved  from  their  allegiance  by  the  vicar  of  Christ;  that  in- 
dulgences, including  great  sjnritual  good,  are  purchased   by  going 
as  cross-bearers  to  exterminate  the  heretics,  &bQ..,  &>c.     Not  one  of 
these  but  rests  on  a  doctrine,  or  is  a  doctrine.     Or  else  does  the 
Church  of  Rome  say  there  is  no  revealed  doctrine  about  the  right  of 
men  to  life  and  thought  ?     Or  did  the  holy  council  err  ?     There  is 
no  escape. 

This  the  gentleman  finding,  makes  a  last  struggle  (as  if  conscious 
that  this  terrible  canon  and  his  cause  cannot  both  stand)  to  vitiate 
fAe  awMcw^iciVy  of  the  document  itself.  This  neio  light  has  unfor- 
tunately come  too  late.  It  is  a  pity  the  gentleman  had  not  received 
it  before  the  first  controversy.  It  would  have  saved  him  the  trials  of 
his  long  and  sad  defence  of  this  canon.  But  he  had  not  even  heard 
of  it  while  the  debate  which  we  arc  now  writing  out.  was  going  on, 
else  why  defend  it  then  and  discard  it  now  ?     He  says  :  "  The  best 

13 


96 

critics  have  regarded  this  canon  as  spurious;  an  interpolation  in  the 
genuine  acts  of  the  council."     Truly,  if  the  authenticity  of  the  m- 
fuUihle  decrees  be  so  uncertain  (as  all  this  wo'uld  seem  to  say),  that 
such   a  document  could  have  been  interpolated  so  as  to  deceive  the 
infallible  church,  then  her  advocates  may  for  ever  close  their  lofty 
speeches  about  an  unerring  guide,  and  the  faithful  tradition  of  the 
Church  of  Rome!     But  hear  him  :  "  In  the  Mazarine  copy  of  the 
council  it  is  not  found  in  either  Greek  or  Latin."    This  is  false.    It  is 
only  ap«»^,  not  the  ichole  of  the  canon  that  is  wanting  in  that  manu- 
script.   Labbe,  who  follows  it,  gives  the  luhole  of  the  canon  in  Latin  ; 
and  where  he  omits  the  Greek,  he  observes,  in  a  marginal  note  :  Deest 
hie  folium  in  codice  Mazarino.     ^^Here  a  leaf  is  ip  anting  in  the  Ma- 
zarine 7najiusc7'ipt."     But  this  leaf  contained  only  the  middle  portion 
of  the  canon,  while  both  the  beginning  and  end  ii^xt  preserved.     This 
looks  more  like  excision  than  interpolation.     It  is  either   too  muck 
or  too  little  for  the  gentleman's  purpose.     And   again  ;  the  second 
paragraph  of  this  canon,  as  taken  from  the  same  manuscript,  points 
out  the  punishment   to   be  inflicted  on  those  ivho  should  be  convicted 
of  heresy.     Since,  then,  the  first  part  and   the  last  part,  and  the 
piinishment  to  be  inflicted  are   all  retained  by  that  MS.,  it  is  clear 
that  only  a  leaf  was  wanting,  not  the  ichole  as  the  gentleman  ventures 
to  say  ;  and  therefore  we  have  the  exterminating  part  at  least.     The 
rest  I  care  not  for.     Again  :  the  Rev.  gentleman  says,  "  Collier  (a 
Protestant)  pronounces  this  canon  spurious.''''     This  too,  I  regret  to 
say,  is  false.     He  barely  states  the  jibove-named  fact  of  its  mutilation. 
Mr.  Hughes  says,  again  :  "  In  the  first  edition  of  the  Councils,  by 
Crabbe  the  Franciscan,  published  by  John  Merlin,  in  1530,  it  is  not 
found."     But  why   does  the  gentleman  not  tell  us,  that  the  said 
Crabbe  afterwards  published  tlirce  editions  of  the  Councils  in  which 
the  said  canon  is  found  ;  and  that  the  edition  of  1530  contained  none 
of  the  fouPljateran' s  canons  1     Is  this  candid  ?  to  suppress  the  one 
fact  and  use  the  other,  so  as  to  make  all  who  do  not  know  better,  think 
that  the  edition  of  1530  7<a«Z  a// f/ie  other  canons  of  that  council?    But 
still -farther.     The  gentleman  claims  Du  Pin  and  Matthew  Paris  as 
rejecting  it.     But  it  is  still  not  true.     Du   Pin  says:  (5)  **  Matthew 
Paris  says  that  those  canons  seemed  tolerable  to  some  of  the  prelates 
and  grievous  to  others.     His  words  are  these  :  facto  prius,  &.C.;  i.  e. 
an  exhortatory  discourse  having  first  been  delivered  by  the  Pope,  the 
seventy  chapters   [capitula]  were  then  read  in  a  full  council,  ivhich 
seemed  tolerable  to  some,  grievous  to  others.     Let  the  case  be  how  it 
will,  it  is  certain   that  these  canons  were  not  made  by  the  Council, 
but  by  Innocent  III,  who  presented  them  to  the  Council  ready  drawn 
up,  and  ordered  them  to  be  read  ;  and  that  the  prelates  did  not  enter 
into  any  debate  upon  them,  but  that  their  silence  was  taken  for  an 
approbation."     Here  then  is  a  falsification  of  the  gentleman's  state- 
ment by   his  own  authorities.  (6)     And   here,  by  the  way,  we  see 

"VI 

(5)  Vol.  jA  cent.  xiii.  p.  95. 

(6)  See  on  this  whole  subject  the  learned  Giier's  Epitome,  p.  190-6, 


99 

ishdt  sort  of  tiling  infaUihility  is.  The  Pope  draws  up  articles  ;  the 
trembling  prelates  receive  them  in  silence.  Some  think  them  toler- 
able, some  intolerable  ;  none  satisfied,  yet  none  speak  ! 

Dr.  Crotty,  Catholic  President  of  Maynooth  College,  thus  testi- 
fied before  the  British  Commissioners  of  Education  Inquiry, — (7) 
*'  I  acknoidedge  that  in  the  Councils  of  Lateran  and  Constance, 
laws  were  enacted  indicting  severe  temporal  punishments  on  persons 
who  at  those  periods  were  labouring  to  subvert  the  Catholic  Faith 
in  Europe:  that  temporal  lords  who  connived  at,  or  favoured  the 
heresy,  should  be  excommunicated  ;  and  if  within  a  year,  they  did 
not  give  a  satisfactory  account  of  their  conduct,  they  should  in  ad- 
dition, forfeit  the  allegiance  and  duty  of  their  vassals."  Will  Mr. 
Hughes  call  this  an  opinion?  Pray,  is  his  better?  Is  not  it  as  good 
as  his? — yea,  better.     Yet  what  does  it  say? 

Finally  (on  this  topic),  the  Council  of  Trent  has  affirmed  some  of 
the  Canons  of  the  fourth  Lateran;  for  example,  its  Canon  on  Confes- 
sion: which  it  has  adopted  on  its  authority,  and  as  its  own.  Yet  it 
has  not  said  one  word  of  the  spuriousncss  of  any  of  the  other  canons. 
It  has  not  repealed  any  of  them.  Yet  it  met  since  the  other — and 
its  decisions  «re  laiv  with  all  true  Catholics.  Then,  here  is  the 
broad  seal  of  the  last,  the  great  Council,  set  to  the  authenticity  of 
this  third  canon  :  and  to  the  authority  of  all  of  them.  And  every 
Catholic  on  earth  is  under  the  following  obligation  :  "  I  also  profess 
and  undoubtedly  receive  all  other  things,  delivered,  defined,  and  de- 
clared by  the  sacred  Canons,  and  general  Councils,  and  particularly 
by  the  holy  Council  of  Trent."  (8) 

I  regret  to  have  spent  so  much  time  on  a  single  document.  But 
the  discussion  was  important  on  many  accounts.  And  now  the  ter- 
rific decree  returns  to  us,  as  one  of  the  "  sacred  canons"  of  the 
*'  Holy  Catholic  Church," — to  be  received  by  all.  Never  was  such 
a  decree  passed  by  any  assembly  secular  or  sacred,  before  or  since. 
Consider  for  a  moment  its  contents,  as  spread  out  at  the  close  of  my 
last  speech. — 1.  Heretics  are  those  who  differ  from  Rome ;  and 
2.  She  is  to  denote  them.  3.  The  civil  power  is  to  take  oath  to  in- 
flict due  punishment  on  them:  4.  Which  is  io  exterminate  them,  if 
they  remain  contumacious;  and  give  their  lands  to  Catholics.  5.  If 
the  civil  power  refuse,  it  is  to  be  reported  to  the  Pope;  and  6.  He 
absolves  the  subjects  from  the  oath  of  allegiance,  and  excommuni- 
cates the  prince,  giving  his  lands  to  Catholics,  and  the  throne  to 
another.  7.  All  favourers  of  heretics  were  to  lose  all  civil  as  well 
as  all  religious  rights:  as  the  right  of  inheritance,  bequest,  suffrage, 
&c.  &-C.  8.  Great  indulgences  were,  on  the  contrary,  bestowed  on 
their  persecutors. 

Is  not  this  at  war  with  all  liberty — and  with  life,  and  the  race  it- 
self, as  well  as  with  high  Heaven?  But  this  decree  is  only  as  "  o?ie 
of  a  thousand.^ ^ 

(7)  See  8th  Report— note,  p.  87,  in  Grier. 

(8)  Creed  of  the  Church  called  Pius  IV. 


100 

The  27th  canon  of  the  third  Lateran,  (which  was  also  a  a  general 
Council,  held  A.  D.  1179,)  is  almost  equally  odious  and  persecuting. 
This  the  gentleman  has  not  tried  to  vitiate; — but  stoutly  charged 
me  with  garbling  it,  in  a  former  controversy,  because  I  followed 
Faber  In  citing  its  substance.  The  Acta  Ecclegiae  give  still  less,  I 
think,  than  Faber.  This  is  the  unlucky  decree  which  the  gentle- 
man, during  the  debate,  made  me  say  was  in  Caranza;  when  unfor- 
tunately, by  turning  to  the  page,  I  had  said  just  the  reverse;  viz: 
that  Caranza  "  with  filial  care  had  omitted  the  whole."  Baronius 
himself  does  not  give  it  continuously.  I  gave  a  full  page;  but  be- 
cause I  omitted  the  nicknames  and  pretended  sins  of  the  heretics, 
he,  as  usual,  charged  me  with  "garbling;"  for  his  great  first  re- 
source is  to  taint  the  documents.  Now,  then,  I  refer  you  to  his 
acknowledged  edition  of  it  in  the  late  controversy. 

This  persecuting  canon,  in  the  name  of  God,  "  curses  the  heretics 
and  their  favourers  ivith  an  anathema.'''  It  "  enjoins  on  all  the  faith- 
ful for  the  reynission  of  sins, '^  **  to  take  up  arms.''  It  enforces  "  con- 
fscation  of  their  goods;"  and  worse  than  all,  adds,   "  Let  it  be 

FREELY  PERMITTED  TO   PRINCES   TO    REDUCE    MEN    OF  SUCH  STAMP  TO 

SLAVERY."  I i^' relaxes  tivo  years  of  enjoined  penance^  to  those 
faithful  Christiansy  who  shall  take  up  arms,"  and  to  '^longer  time — 
longer  indulgence;''  and  those  who  refused,  ^'  were  inhibited  from  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord." 

Surely  this  is  doctrinal^  ecclesiastical,  and  persecuting?  Surely 
it  relates  to  morals,  to  faith,  to  didy?  We  commend  it  to  the  gen- 
tleman's scissors!  Let  it  but  pass  his  alembick,  and  it  will  come  out 
pure  and  ethereal,  refined  from  *' slavery,"  "persecution,"  and  all 
that  is  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty ! 

Let  us  pass  from  these  decrees  of  Councils  to  the  Catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent — a  source  of  proof  recognized  by  the  gentleman. 
Tn  naming  those  who  are  excluded  from  the  Church,- it  is  said, 
'^Heretics  and  schismatists,  because  they  have,  separated  from  the 
Church,  and  belong  to  her  only  as  deserters  belong  to  the  army 
from  which  they  have  deserted.  It  is  not,  hoivever,  to  be  denied, 
that  they  arc  still  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  as  those 
liable  to  have  her  judgment  passed"  [the  English  translation  recom- 
mended by  the  Reverend  clergy  in  this  country,  here/ori>-^-§  a  word, 
which  is  not  in  the  Latin — as  if  only  opinions  were  to  be  judged — 
and  puts  in,  "  on  their  opinions,''  whereas  it  is]  "  on  them,  to  be 
punished  by  her;"  [another  forgery,  for  the  translator  interpolates 
*  spiritual,'  but  the  Latin  is  simply  ' puniantur,']  "and  denounced 
with  anathema."  Now,  here  is  a  claim  full  of  despotism,  which  the 
translator's  frauds  could  not  conceal.  It  most  fitly  compares  the 
Roman  Church  to  an  army,  and  us  poor  heretics  to  deserters,  who 
are  still  subject  to  her.  Yet  does  the  gentleman  talk  about  freedom 
of  conscience,  and  of  worship  I  But  how  is  this?  "  Subject  to  her 
judgment  still — like  deserters."  So  they  act  it  out  in  Italy  and 
Spain  :  no  thanks  to  them  for  freedom  here !     To  be  punished  by 


101 

A^n"  Not  "  spiritual"  alone,  though  that  were  destructive  of  liber- 
ty; but  it  is  more  than  this,  as  any  one  will  perceive  who  consults 
either  the  force  of  the  words,  or  the  history  and  practices  of  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

We  may  learn  what  is  meant  above  by  referring  to  other  testimo- 
ny. For  example.  Dens' s  Theology,  adopted  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
Bishops  of  Ireland,  since  1808,  as  a  standard  book.  What  does  it 
say? — "Although  Heretics  are  without  the  church,  nevertheless, 
they  remain  by  reason  of  baptism,  subject  to  the  church,  whence 
she  justly  seizes  them  as  deserters  from  the  camp  of  the  church,  and 
so  they  are  under  the  obligation  of  returning."  (9) 

Under  the  question  ''Is  it  lawful  to  tolerate  the  rites  of  unbe- 
lievers?'' he  replies,  "  The  rites  of  other  unbelievers,  viz.  o^  Pagans 
and  Heretics,  are  not  in  themselves  to  be  tolerated;  because  they 
are  so  bad,  that  no  truth  or  utility  can  from  thence  be  derived  to  the 
good  of  the  church."  (10) 

•'  Unbelievers  who  have  been  baptized,  as  heretics,  and  apostates 
generally,  and  q\so  baptized  schismatics ,  can  be  compelled  by  corpo- 
ral punishments,  to  return  to  the  Catholic  faith,  and  unity  of  the 
Church." 

"  The  reason  is,  that  they  by  baptism,  are  made  subjects  of  the 
Church,  and  therefore,  the  Church  has  jurisdiction  over  them,  and 
the  power  of  compelling  them  by  the  ordained  "means  to  obedience, 
to  fulfil  the  obligations  contracted  in  their  baptism.'"' 

'•  This  also  obtains  in  the  case  of  those  who  have  been  baptized 
in  their  infancy"  [I  pray  the  gentleman  to  remember  what  I  said  of 
'  cogendos,'  and  of  baptism  as  '  a  brand  of  slavery;']  "  as  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  teaches,  sess.  7,  can.  14,"  [the  very  proof  adduced  by 
me,]  *'  and  the  fourth  Council  of  Toledo,  canon  55,  vol.  ii.  pp.  79 — 
81."  The  Toledo  canon  (11)  is  ''that  eveyi  those  who  by  force 
or  necessity  adopted  the  faith,  should  be  forced  to  hold  it."  "  Op- 
portet  ut  fidem,  etiam  quam  vi  vel  necessitate  susceperunt,  tenere 
cogantur." 

"  Heretics  that  are  known  to  be  such  are  infamous  for  this  very 
cause  itself,  and  are  deprived  of  Christian  buried." 

"  Their  temporcd  goods  are,  for  this  very  cause  itself,  confiscated ; 
but  before  the  execution  of  the  act,  the  sentence  declaratory  of  their 
crime  ought  to  proceed  from  the  ecclesiastical  judge,  because  the 
cognizance  of  heresy  lies  in  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal."  "  Finally, 
they  are  also  justly  afflicted  with  other  corporal  punishments,  as 
exile,  imprisonment,  &c." 

^Heretics  are  justly  punished  with  death,  because  God,  in  the 
Old  Testament  ordered  the  false  prophets  to  be  slain ;  and  in  Deut. 
xvii.  12,  it  is  decreed,  that  if  any  one  will  act  proudly,  and  will  not 
obey  the  commands  of  the  priest,  let  him  be  put  to  death."^  See  also 
18th  chapter. 

(9)  Vol.  ii.  p.  114.        (10)  Vol.  ii.  pp.  82,  83.        (11)  See  Caranza,  page  55. 


102 

*'  The  same  is  proved  from  the  condemnation  of  the  14th  article 
ofJofm  llttss,  in  the  Council  of  Constance."  (11)  That  article  de- 
nies the  right  of  handing  one  over  to  the  secular  power  for  heresy. 

Here  is  proof  which  he  that  runs  may  read.  Will  the  gentleman 
tell  me  it  too  is  opinion?  Is  his  any  more?  Dens's  is,  to  say  the 
least,  as  good  as  his.  But  this  is  under  the  seal  of  the  Irish  pre- 
lates. Is  it  still  opifiion?  When  I  adduced  the  Pope,  it  was  still 
opinion!  Either  then  you  must  call  a  general  council  to  repeal,  or 
rest  in  the  fearful  and  full  proof  we  have  adduced.  But  again:  We 
have  the  testimony  of  the  amwtators  of  the  Rhemish  New  Testa' 
ment,  with  full  notes,  prepared  with  much  care,  as  an  exhibit  of 
papal  doctrines.  Note  on  Luke  ix.  55,  56,  "  The  Church  or  Chris- 
tian Princes,  are  not  blamed  for  putting  Heretics  to  death."  Note 
on  Revelations,  xviii.  6,  "  The 'blood  of  Heretics  is  not  the  blood  of 
saints;  no  more  than  the  blood  of  thieves,  man-killers,  and  other 
malefactors — for  the  shedding  of  which  bloo.d,  by  order  of  justice, 
no  commonwealth  shall  answer."  Rev.  ii.  6,  20,  22,  •-'  He  [Christ] 
warnelh  bishops  to  be  zealous  and  stout  against  the  fa]se  prophets  of 
tvhat  sort,  soever,  by  alluding  covertly  to  the  example  of  holy  Elias, 
that  in  zeal  killed  four  hundred  and  fifty  false  prophets."  John  x. 
1.  "  Arius,  Calvin,  Lut-her,  and  all  that  succeeded  them  in  room  and 
doctrine,  are  thieves  and  murderers."  Acts  xix.  19,  [Please  in  each 
ease  refer  to  the  Scripture-passage.]  "  A  Christian  man  is  bound  to 
burn  or  deface  all  wicked  books,  of  what  sort  soever,  especially 
hereticcd  books.  Therefore  the  Church  has  taken  order  against  all 
such  books.''"' 

Here  then  is  another  collateral  testimony  full  to  my  purpose.  It  is 
the  declaration  of  a  long  accredited  commentary  that  the  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  Church  not  only  justify  hui  command  persecution.  But 
again.  Besides  this  testimony  from  annotators,  what  says  the  great 
BossuET  ?  Of  the  power  of  the  sword  in  matters  of  religion  he  says, 
**  It  cannot  be  called  in  question  without  weakening  or  maiming  the 
public  authority  or  power."  "  No  illusion  can  be  more  dangerous 
than  making  toleration  a  mark  of  the  true  church.'''  No  ;  the  church's 
holy  severity,  and  her  holy  delicacy  forbade  her  such  indulgence,  or 
rather  softness.(12) 

We  have  also  testimony  to  the  intolerance  of  Romanism  from  Bel- 
gium as  well  as  from  France.  As  soon  as  the  king  of  the  Nether- 
lands took  possession  of  his  dominions,  the  papal  prelates  made  an 
effort  to  re-establish  throughout  Flanders  the  ancient  despotism  of 
the  church  over  conscience.  They  addressed  a  letter  to  the  king,  to 
be  found  in  the  Annual  Register,  (London)  and  portions  of  it  in  the 
History  of  the  Jesuits,  which  is  a  reply  to  Dallas's  Defence  of  them. 
They  say,  "  Sire,  the  existence  and  privileges  of    the  Catholic 

(11)  Dens's  Theo.  vol.  ii.  pp.  88,  89.  See  also  Reports  I.  and  II.  of  Protestant 
Meeting  at  Exeter  Hall,  London,  1835. 

(12)  GEuvres  de  Btss,  Tom.  111.  p.  411.  Paris  1747. 


103 

Church  in  this  part  of  your  kingdom  are  inconsistent  with  an  article 
of  the  new  constitution,  by  which  equal  favour  and  protection  are 
promised  to  all  religions."  "  Since  the  conversion  of  the  Belgians  to 
Christianity  such  a  dangerous  innovation  has  never  been  introduced 
into  these  provinces,  unless  by  force." 

**  Sire,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  to  your  Majesty  that  the  ca- 
nonical  laws  which  are  sanctioned  by  the  ancient  constitutions  of  the 
country,  are  incompatible  with  the  projected  constitution  which 
would  give  in  Belgium  equal  favour  and  protection  to  all  religions.^' 
The  **  canonical  laics,  say  the  Popes,  ought  to  be  received  everywhere. 
But  wherever  they  are  received,  say  these  bishops  (and  truly)  tolera- 
tion is  out  of  the  question.  *'The  canonical  laws  have  always  rejected 
schism  and  heresy  from  the  bosom  of  the  church."  Does  Mr. 
Hughes  deny  this,  or  condemn  the  effect,  if  admitted  by  him  to  be 
true? 

'*  The  Council  of  Trent,  all  whose  resolutions  were  published  in 
these  provinces,  and  have  the  force  of  ecclesiastical  law,  commanded 
the  bishops  carefully  to  watch  not  only  over  the  maintenance  of  the 
sacred  pledge  of  the  faith,  but  also  that  of  the  laws  which  concern 
the  essential  discipline  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  secure  the  con- 
sistency and  inviolability  of  its  government."*  One  of  these  resolu- 
tions of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  the  object  of  the  bull  of  Pope 
Paul  the  III.  (observes  the  refuter  of  Dallas)  which  issued  in  conse- 
quence, was  the  "  extirpation  of  heresy." 

The  bishops  proceed  to  say  "  Securing  the  same  protection  to  all  reli- 
gions would  be  incompatible  with  the  free  and  entire  exercise  of  our  offi- 
cial duties.'^  That  is,  whereyer popery  really  and  fully  exists  there  can 
be  no  toleration,  for  toleration  "  is  incompatible  with  the  free  and  entire 
exercise  of  the  official  duties  of  its  bishops. ^^  In  fine,  they  say,  *'  We  are 
bound,  sire,  incessantly  to  preserve  the  people  entrusted  to  our  care 
from  the  doctrines  which  are  in  opposition  to  the  doctrines  ot  the  Ca- 
tholic Church.  We  could  not  release  ourselves  from  this  obligation 
without  violating  our  most  sacred  duties  ;  and  if  your  Majesty,  by  vir- 
tue of  a  fundamental  latv,  protected  in  these  provinces  the  jnihlic  pro- 
fession and  spreading  of  these  doctrines,  the  progress  of  which  zve  are 
bou7id  to  oppose  with  the  care  and  energy  which  the  Catholic  Church 
expects  from  our  office,  we  should  be  informal  opposition  to  the  laws 
of  the  state,  to  the  measures  which  your  majesty  might  adopt  to  main- 
tain them  among  us,  and  in  spite  of  all  our  endeavours  to  secure  union 
and  peace,  the  public  tranquillity  might  still  be  disturbed.'^  Here  is  a 
bold,  honest  position  taken  ;  without  disguise  they  declare  that  when- 
ever the  laws  of  the  state  shall  tolerate  any  other  religion,  then  the 
papal  prelates  and  the  Catholic  system  are  necessarily  opposed  to  those 
laws,  and  to  the  government  which  should  maintain  them.  Here 
observe,  they  do  not  say  that  as  popery  was  the  religion  of  the  state, 
therefore  protestantism  was  against  the  law.  But  they  say  whenever 
the  law  of  the  state  shall  so  change  as  to  tolerate  Protestants  (or 
heresy  and  schism)  then  popery  will  be  opposed  to  the  laws  and  go- 


104 

vermnent.  That  is,  popery  is  in  its  own  necessary  nature  intolerant ^ 
opposed  to  liberty. 

It  is  a  proper  place  here  to  introduce  the  Pope's  letter  to  the 
cardinals  universally,  dated  February  5th,  1808,  declaring  his  dis- 
sent to  Buonaparte's  proposal  to  grant  the  free  public  exercise  of  re- 
ligious worship  to  dissenters  from  popery.  He  says,  "  It  is  joroposed 
that  all  religious  j)er  suasions  should  be  free,  and  their  worshijy  pub- 
licly exercised  ;  but  we  have  rejected  this  article  as  contrary  to  the 
canons,  and  to  the  councils,  to  the  Catholic  religion,  and  to  the 
welfare  of  the  state,  on  account  of  the  deplorable  consequences 
which  ensue  from  it.  (13)  Here  is  the  whole  matter  out.  Toleration 
is  against  "  canons,"  against  "  councils,"  against  the  Catho- 
lic RELIGION."  Is  not  the  Catholic  religion,  as  a  system,  and 
in  many  o^ lis  doctrines,  opposed  to  liberty?  Let  the  gentleman 
settle  it  with  popes,  bishops,  commentators  and  councils. 

How  well  does  the  reigning  Pope  agree  with  his  predecessor  "of 
happy  memory."  He,  as  cited  by  me  already,  calls  "  the  liberty  of 
the  press''  an  evil  never  sufficiently  to  be  execrated  and  detested, 
and  **  liberty  of  conscience  a  pestilential  error."  It  is  a  most  striking 
fact,  worthy  of  record,  that  even  the  index  to  the  decrees  of  councils 
on  the  word  **  heretic'^*  shows  the  persecuting  and  oppressive  charac- 
ter of  the  Church. 

Haeretici,  Judsei,  ethnici,  cum  iis  preces  habere  communes  veta- 
tur. 

Templorum  haereticorum  ingressus  prohibetur. 

Conjugium  Calholici  cum  ethnicis,  haereticis,  schismaticis,  pro- 
hibitum. 

Commercium  cum  iisdem  omne  vetitum. 

Quomodo  coercendi. 

Haeretici  pervicaces  exterminentur. 

Damnali  j)otestatibus,  ssecularibus  relinquantur. 

Multa  circa  eos  qui  favent  haeriticis. 

Pcense  haereticorum  et  illorum  fautorum. 

Incarcerentur  usque  ad  mortem. 

Relapsorum  poena. 

Domus  in  qua  inventus  est  haereticus  diruatur.  (14) 

TRANSLATION. 

It  is  prohibited  to  pray  with  heretics,  .Tews,  and  heathens. 
It  is  forbidden  to  enter  houses  of  worship  used  by  heretics. 
Catholics  are  prohibited  to  marry  with  heretics,  Jews,  and  schis- 
matists. 

All  intercourse  with  them  is  forbidden. 

By  what  methods  they  are  to  be  coerced. 

Pertinacious  heretics  are  to  be  exterminated. 

Being  condemned  they  arc  to  be  left  to  the  secular  power. 

Many  things  touching  those  who  favour  heretics. 

(13)  See  Hist.  Jesuits.  (14)  Acta  Ecclesioe,  torn.  ii. 


105   • 

The  punishments  of  heretics  and  their  favourers. 

They  are  to  be  imprisoned  even  unto  death. 

Punishment  of  the  relapsed. 

The  house  in  which  a  heretic  is  found  is  to  be  pulled  down. 

The  great  and  good  Baxter  says  :  ^^  Smithjield  confuted  the  Pro- 
testants, ivhom  both  the  Universities  could  not  confute.  Tlieir  In- 
quisition is  a  school  where  they  dispute  more  advantageously  than 
in  academies.  Though  all  the  learned  men  in  the  world  could  not 
confute  the  poor  Albigenses,  Waldenses,  and  Bohemians,  yet  by 
these  iron  arguments  they  had  men  who  presently  stopped  the 
mouths  of  many  thousands,  if  not  hundreds  of  thousands  of  them, 
even  as  the  Mahomedans  confute  the  Christians.  A  strappado  is 
a  knotty  argument.  In  how  few  days  did  they  convert  30,000  Pro- 
testants in  and  about  Paris,  till  they  left  them  not  (on  earth)  a  word 
to  say  1  In  how  few  weeks'  space  did  the  ignorant  Irish  thus  stop 
the  mouths  of  many  thousand  Protestants?  Even  in  Ulster,  alone, 
as  is  strongly  conjectured,  by  testimony  on  oath,  about  150,000  men 
were  mortally  silenced.  There  is  nothing  like  stone  dead  with  a 
papist.  They  love  not  to  tire  themselves  with  disputes,  when  the 
business  may  be  sooner  and  more  successfully  despatched."  (15) 

Before  closing,  there  are  some  multifarious  matters  which  the 
gentleman  has  thrown  in  by  way  of  **  tilling  up,"  that  I  may  be  ex- 
pected to  notice. 

As  to  the  "  premium  of  $500,"  I  produced  the  book,  and  my 
friend,  at  the  place  appointed,  met,  with  it.  But  no  premimn  has 
appeared,  though  I  agreed  to  lay  it  out  in  Bibles  for  the  worshippers 
of  St.  John's.  Or,  if  the  gentleman  pleases,  we  will  build  with  it 
confessionals  for  priests  to  confess  their  sins  in. 

As  to  "  the  majority  principle,"  it  is  he  who  has  changed,  not  I. 
On  the  first  evening  of  this  discussion,  as  also  in  the  former  Contro- 
versy, he  avowed  that  the  majority  had  the  right  (without  making 
any  qualifications)  to  rule  the  minority.  Thus,  (16)  he  says:  "/ 
would  ask,  had  not  they  the  right,  as  the  majority  by  a  m,illio7i  to 
one,  to  take  measures  for  the  common  welfare  ?  The  doctrine  of 
Christ  teaches  submission  to  'the  powers  that  be;'"  and  adds, 
**  No  republican,  I  should  think,  would  deny  it."  Will  the  reader 
believe  that  this  is  in  defence  of  the  cruelties  practised  by  the  said 
Fourth  Lateran  Council,  whose  bloody  canon  we  have  so  largely  ex- 
amined ?  Now  apply  the  principle.  In  Italy,  in  Spain,  the  majority 
have  established  the  Catholic  religion  by  law.  Now  I  ask  him, 
again,  ^^  had  the  majority  a  right  to  do  so?''"'  Let  him  reply: 
yes,  or  no.  He  will  not  venture  to  do  either.  You  will  see  that  he 
will  evade  it.  Yet  the  above  has  answered  it.  His  shield  was  then 
on  the  other  side,  and  he  left  his  principles  exposed. 

(15)  Key  for  Calholics  to  open  the  juggling  of  the  Jesuits. 

(16)  Page  72,  IXth  Letter  of  the  late  Controversy. 

14 


106 

That  this  is  his  principle,  see  Cardinal  Bellarmine,  (17)  where  hq 
says  distinctly,  that  when  Catholics  have  the  majority  they  have  not 
only  the  right  to  rw/e^but  to  exterminate  heretics.  He  who  shall  see  a 
majority  of  our  people  papists  shall  stand  at  the  tomb  of  liberty  in 
this  land.  As  to  "  voluntary  slaves,"  he  thinks  the  American  people 
would  not  be  such,  though  they  should  elect  the  Pope  their  head 
for  life,  and  alter  the  Constitution  to  justify  it?  Could  a  Roman 
monarchist  say  more  1 

As  to  the  charge  of  "  artifice"  in  my  statement  of  his  "  candid 
admission''  "  of  the  established  order  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  du- 
ties in  a  state,"  I  am  willing  to  leave  the  matter  to  be  judged  of  by 
every  honest  reader.  The  testimony  of  the  Belgian  bishops,  given 
above,  shows  the  gentleman's  real  system. 

He  denies  that  the  doctrines  of  his  church  are  opposed  to  liberty, 
because  Catholics,  as  in  France,  Poland,  &c.,  have  sought  and 
maintained  liberty.  The  French  conquered  their  liberty  from  the 
priesthood.  And  as  to  Poland,  noble,  bleeding  Poland  !  if  she  had 
expelled  the  Jesuits  a  little  sooner !  !— Poland  is  but  semi-papal — 
and  she  is  the  nursery  of  freedom  and  now  its  martyrs,  not  in  conse- 
quence but  in  spite  of  popery. 

"  The  cud  of  persecution"  will  do  for  the  quid  nwnc5  of  Jesuitism. 
But  the  doctrine,  that  "  Catholics  can  be  submissive  to  the  bishop 
of  Kome,^'  and  yet  have  nothing  to  do  with  him  **  as  temporal 
prince,"  is  hard  of  digestion,  and  especially  in  America.  For  ex- 
ample :  He,  as  bishop,  in  the  name  of  God,  denounces  "  liberty  of 
conscience,"  and,  as  *' temporal  pritice, "uses  an  arm,y  to  enforce 
uniformity  of  worship.  As  bishop,  all  Catholics  approve,  and  must 
approve  oi  the  principle ;  but  yet  the /;r«c^ice  they  condemn.  Now 
can  any  man  consistently  hold  to  a  bishop  of  such  principles,  and 
yet  reject  the  principles;  or,  consistently  uphold  him  as  head  of  the 
church,  when  as  a  prince  he  is  so  foul  a  tyrant  as  to  rest  his  throne 
on  the  hired  bayonets  of  Austria.  When  (as  the  gentleman  owns) 
the  Pope,  CIS  prince,  "  meddles  in  the  civil  concerns  of  other  states," 
and  they  resist  him,  as  ^' pj'ince,"  what  becomes  of  the  bishop?  can 
you  separate  them?  He  asks,  "Is  a  Presbyterian  minister  bound 
to  grant  his  daughter,  if  she  demand  it,  the  right  to  be  a  Catholic?" 
Surely;  or  a  Mahomedan,  or  an  atheist,  if  she  be  "of  age"  to 
judge — and  even  in  her  minority  he  has  no  right  to  offer  force. 
But  what  then?  If  she  should  exercise  the  right  of  becoming  a 
papist,  and  then  the  priest  should  deny  her  the  Bible,  make  his 
pardon  her  means  of  scdvation,  require  her  to  confess  her  most 
secret  sins  to  him,  and  she  consent,  that  were  /*  voluntary  slavery.'" 

I  ask,  in  turn,  if  our  *'  General  Assembly"  be,  as  he  says  "  a  radia- 
ting centre,''  (which,  by  the  way  he  predicted  some  time  ago,  about 
to  fall  to  pieces)  what  is  Rome  ?  De  Pratt  says,  "  Catholicism  is  not 
organised  like  other  worships.  The  latter  l)€ive  no  common  centre, 
uo  exclusive  source  from  whence  flows  power  in  every  religious  so- 

U7)  Book  iii.  chap.  23.  of  Laics, 


107 

ciety.  They  have  no  Rome,  nor  precedents  of  Rome,  nor  preten- 
sions of  Rome.  The  exaltation  or  depression  of  these  worships  is  of 
no  importance  in  the  political  order  of  states.  Jt  is  not  so  with 
Rome  ;  every  thins;  in  Catholicism  tends  to  Rome.  The  Pope  is 
chief  of  120,000,006  of  followers."  "  Catholicism  cannot  have  less 
than  400,000  ministers.  This  worship  and  its  ministers  are  spread 
everywhere."  **  The  Irish  and  the  Amerlcan  priests  (my  friend 
is  both)  are  7nore  obsequious  to  Rome  than  the  German  or  French 
priests  who  are  placed  nearer  to  her.  Reverence  is  increased  with 
distance.  Rome,  viewed  at  a  distance,  is  a  Colossus."  "  The  Pope 
counts  more  subjects  than  a  sovereign,  more  eveii  than  many  sove- 
reigns together.  These  have  subjects  only  on  their  ovtn  terri- 
tory. The  Pope  counts  subjects  on  the  territory  oj'  all  so- 
vereigns. These  comnnand  only  the  exterior.  The  Pope  pene- 
trates deeper.  He  commands  the  interior.  The  seat  of  his  empire 
is  placed  in  the  conscience  itself  If  the  whole  world  were  Catholics 
the  Pope  would  command  the  world — what  a  power? — what  would 
it  leave  to  others  ?  In  a  word,  he  would  shake  the  world  !  He  did 
it  for  ages  in  respect  to  Europe.  Not  to  knoio  how  to  foresee  is 
not  to  know  how  to  govern  or  to  judge  the  ivorld.""  This  man  was 
was  once  an  Abbe  of  the  Pope.  He  knew  what  he  was  saying.  Yet 
can  Mr.  Hughes  talk  honestly  of  the  '*  radiating  centre"  of  our  Ge- 
neral Assembly  as  dangerous  to  the  land  with  Rome  in  his  eye  ! 

What  the  gentleman  says  of  the  forty  Italian  editions  of  the 
Scripture  needs  proving,  I  have  searched  extensively  where  such 
evidence  should  be  found,  and  it  is  not  to  be  had.  Let  us  have  the 
proof.     Let  us  see  the  book. 

But  supposing  it  true,  and  also  the  gentleman's  translation  of 
"  The  Index"  to  be  just,  then  what  after  all  is  the  mighty  benefit. 
Publish  forty  editions  of  the  Bible,  and  iheu  forbid  the  people  to  read 
them!  Does  he  intend  to  insult  our  feelings  by  making  a  farce  of 
this  subject,  or  our  reason  ;  by  such  logic?  By  the  way,  the  gentle- 
man denied  that  the  Index  contained  what  I  asserted  it  did.  He 
called  for  the  book  ;  I  produced  it.  Pray  has  he  had  the  justice  to  own 
that  he  was  mistaken  ?  I  ask,  did  it  or  did  it  not  contain  the  pass- 
age? 

There  is  near  the  close  of  his  speech  this  admission.  "  The  civil 
restraints  appointed  by  governments^  whether  Catholic  or  Protest- 
ant, are  chargeable  to  those  governments,  and  not  to  the  doctrines 
which  they  profess.'*^  Then  why  does  he  just  before  charge  "  the 
Presbyterianparliament  of  England"  with  restraining  the  freedom  af 
the  press  ?  "  Was  it  not  chargeable  to  the  government,  and  not  to  the 
doctrines  which  they  professed."  In  the  same  page  he  defends  popery 
and  assails  Presbyterians  by  a  most  palpable  inconsistency  for  doing 
Ahe  same  thing.  In  the  former  Controversy  (18)  he  said,  "Caesar" 
never  was  in  the  power  of  (Presbyterian)  your  church  but  once."    Yet 

(18)  Letter  9,  near  close. 


108 

he  has,  during  this  cantroversy,  again  and  again  charged  Presbyterf- 
ans  with  abusing  civil  power  for  many  ages  and  in  many  lands. 

The  gentleman  ridicules  my  thirty  questions  ;  yet  strange  to  tell  he 
answers  none  of  them. 

I  only  notice  in  the  last  place  this  admission  of  the  gentleman,  "  that 
the  doctrines  of  Catholics  leaves  them  perfect  liberty  to  exercise  their 
own  discretion  about  civil  and  religious  liberty. ''"'  Is  this  not  al- 
lowing that  the  civil  and  religious  rights^  of  man  are  not  sufficiently 
regardedby  Romanism  to  be  apart  of  their  religion  ?  What,  does 
not  the  Bible  define  the  rights  of  conscience  and  of  personal  as  well 
of  civil  liberty  ?  Presbyterians  hold  that  God  has  revealed  a  clear 
code  of  rights  in  his  word,  and  that  '*  there  is  no  discretion'^  as  to 
the  matter  of  liberty.  That  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  destroy  or  re- 
press the  liberty  of  others,  or  alienate  our  own  ;  in  a  word,  that  the 
Gospel  is  the  charter  of  freedom  to  man.  I  have,  in  conclusion,  only 
to  beg  the  gentleman's  pardon,  that  my  poetical  couplet,  derived  from 
his  own  native  land,  did  not  please  him,  and  my  only  reparation  pos- 
sible is  to  furnish  him  a  better. 

Well-spring  of  grief,  and  fierce  wrath^s  hospital. 
The  school  of  error,  temple  of  Heresy, 
Once  Rome,  now  Babylon  most  wicked,  all 
With  sighs  and  tears  bewail  thy  piteous  fall; 
Thou  mother  of  Deceit,  bulwark  of  Tyranny; 
Truth's  persecutriz,  nnrse  of  Iniquity, 
The  living's  hell  ;  a  miracle  it  will  be^ 
If  Christ  in  fury  come  not  against  thee 
Most  shameless  w**''e, 

Petrarch,  Sonnet  149.  torn,  IV. 


Or  this, 


The  Inquisition,  model  most  complete 

Of  perfect  wickedness,  where  deeds  were  done, — 

(Deeds !  let  them  ne'er  be  nam'd,)  and  set  and  planned 

Deliberately  and  with  most  musing  pains, 

How  to  extremest  thrill  of  agony 

The  flesh,  the  blood,  and  souls  of  holy  men, 

Her  victims  might  be  wrought,  and  when  she  saw 

New  tortures  of  her  labouring  fancy  born. 

She  leapt  for  joy,  and  made  great  haste  to  try 

Their  force,  well  pleased  to  hear  a  deeper  groan. 

The  supplicating  hand  of  innocence. 

That  made  the  tiger  mild,  and  in  its  wrath 

The  lion  pause — the  groans  of  suffering  most 

Severe  were  nought  to  her.     She  laugh'd  at  groans  f 

No  music  pleased  her  more,  and  no  repast 

So  sweet  to  her,  as  hloodofmcn  redeemed 

By  blood  of  Christ.     Ambition's  self,  tho'  mad, 

And  nursed  in  human  gore,  with  her  compared  was  merciful. 

J.  BRECKINRIDGK 


109 


"  Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion,  in  any  or  all  its 
principles  or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious 
liberty .?" 


NEGATIVE  III.— MR.  HUGHES. 

Mr.  President  : — You  have  been  told  by  the  gentleman  who 
has  just  concluded,  that  "  this  Society,  in  a  dignified  letter  to  the 
Editor  of  the  Catholic  Diary,  has  exposed  the  falsehoods  of  the 
piece"  published  in  that  paper.  Now. I  have  taken  the  pains  to 
procure  a  copy  of  the  letter  referred  to,  and  it  turns  out,  that  the 
Society  have  not  exposed  one  single  *'  falsehood."  They  merely 
complain  (apparently  to  soothe  the  gentleman's  feelings)  that  some 
of  the  remarks  were  **  in  a  great  measure  untrue.''''  This  is 
supposing  falsehoods.  But  to  suppose  them,  and  to  "expose" 
them,  are  two  different  things.  On  what  authority,  therefore,  has 
the  gentleman  ventured  to  assert  that  any  falsehoods  were  "ex- 
posed" by  this  Society,  when  the  statement  is  discovered  to  be  un- 
supported by  the  facts.  The  editor  gave  his  reasons,  at  the  time, 
for  not  publishing  the  letter  of  the  Society — and  the  fact  of  their 
not  having  "exposed"  the  pretended  mistatements,  was  one  of 
those  reasons.  J  know, — for  I  was  an  eye  and  ear  witness,  as 
well  as  the  Society, — that*  the  statements  are  substantially  cor- 
rect. 

The  gentleman  pretends  to  discover  a  departure  from  the  rules, 
when  I  go  to  other  lands  and  other  ages,  to  show  the  character  of 
Presbyterianism.  This  inference  is  not  just.  I  am  at  liberty  to 
quote  history,  not  indeed  for  the  proof  of  Presbyterian  doctrine, 
but  for  the  illustration  of  Presbyterian  intolerance.  When  I  come 
to  treat  of  the  question  of  doctrine,  I  shall  show,  by  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  of  Faith,  that  the  Presbyterians  hold  now,  in  the 
United  States,  some  of  the  very  doctrines  which  constituted  their 
warrant  for  persecution  in  other  countries.  He  ought  to  know, 
that  I  establish  my  point  by  showing  that  the  creed  of  his  church 
retains  the  doctrinal  theory  of  persecution,  in  despite  of  the 
American  Constitution,  which  has  only  taken  away  the  right  to 
put  it  in  'practice.  Against  the  Catholics,  he  goes  back  a  ihousand 
years  before  Presbyterians  existed,  and  although  his  sect  is  only 
three  hundred  years  old,  I,  forsooth,  must  not  go  back  more  than 
fifty  years, — must  not  go  beyond  the  boundaries  of  the  United 
States,  in  which  the  government  had  taken  from  them  the  power 
to  persecute.    This  is  unjust,  and  ungenerous.     All  that  is  required 


no 

by  the  rules,  Is,  that  when  he  denies  a  doctrine,  in  the  name  of  his 
church,  I  should  prove  by  the  Confession  of  Faith  now  adopted 
that  it  is  a  **  doctrine  ;"  and  he  is  at  liberty  to  establish  any 
point  against  me,  by  showing  that  such  a  point  has  been  set  forth 
as  a  *' doctrine"  of  the  Catholic  Church,  in  some  canon  of  a 
general  council,  or  bull  of  a  Pope. 

If,  therefore,  I  go  to  other  lands  "  for  matter,"  I  only  show 
what  is,  and  has  been,  the  practical  operation  of  the  doctrines 
which  are  undeniably  in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  To  restrict  the 
argument,  then,  to  the  United  States,  since  the  Revolution,  is  as 
absurd,  as  it  would  be,  to  restrict  the  inquiry,  respecting  a  man's 
moral  character,  to  the  period  during  which  he  was  deprived  of 
liberty,  by  incarceration.  His  principles  of  dishonesty,  his  perve7'se . 
nature,  are  the  same,  as  when  he  enjoyed  liberty  to  indulge  them  ; 
and  it  would- be  a  poor  vindication  to  say  that  he  never  has  in- 
dulged them,  since  the  power  to  do  so  was  taken  from  him.  And 
yet,  this  is  the  defence  which  the  gentleman  sets  up,  by  anticipa- 
tion, for  the  Presbyterians. 

The  gentleman  says,  that  there  is  no  right-hand  of  fellowship 
between  the  Reformed  Presbyterians  and  the  General  Assembly 
Presbyterians.  This  assertion  is  denied  by  members  of  both 
churches.  Do  the  General  Assembly  look  on  their  reformed 
brethren  as  heretics?  The  latter,  it  is  known,  reject  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  as  not  being  a  moral  ordinance  of 
God  ;  and  yet  the  gentleman  himself  has  pronounced  them  *'  as 
among  the  purest  Presbyterians  that  ever  lived  !"  How  is  all 
this  to  be  accounted  for  ? 

Before  entering  on  the  main  question,  I  must  clear  up  a  point 
in  which  my  personal  integrity  is  interested.  It  refers  to  my  re- 
marks on  the  gentleman's  quotation  from  the  Council  of  Trent. 
In  order  that  the  matter  may  be  understood,  it  is  necessary  for 
me  to  remind  you,  that  in  a  former  speech  he  gave,  as  a  transla- 
tion f7'om  the  Council  of  Trent,  a  passage,  setting  forth  that  the 
priest,  as  the  minister  of  the  sacrament  of  penance,  was  to  "  in- 
flict punishment."  These  are  the  words.  Knowing  the  charge 
to  be  false,  I  replied,  that  the  words  in  the  original  were  **  poenam 
injungere  ;"  which  is,  **  to  enjoin  a  penance."  When  a  priest 
tells  the  penitent  in  confession  to  recite  some  of  the  Psalms  of 
David,  he  "  enjoins  a  penance."  This  is  the  true  meaning  of 
"  poenam  injungere ;"  but  the  translation  given  by  the  gentle- 
man, "  to  inflict  punishment,"  might  mean  personcd  castigation  ; 
and  there  is  little  doubt  but  that  he,  or  the  "  faithful  Cramp," 
whom  he  followed,  intended  that  it  should  be  so  understood  by 
Protestants.  On  these  evidences,  I  charged  him  with  having  per- 
verted our  doctrine  ;  and  that  charge  still  stands  against  him. 
For,  in  his  reply,  he  flies  from  the  original  and  translation,  on 
which  my  charge  was  founded.  He  gives  the  same  translation, 
and  presents  another,  different,  sentence  of  the  Latin,  which  we 


Ill 

shall  presently  examine.  But  in  order  to  do. perfect  justice,  I 
shall  give  the  whole  passage,  as  furnished  in  the  corrected  speech. 

'*  Is  it  not  written  near  at  hand, — *  poenam  quam  opportet  pro 
illis  poenitentibus  imponere?'  i.  e.,  'the  punishment  which  ought 
to  be  inflicted  on  the  penitents.'  "  Now  I  pronounced  this  Latin 
a  "  fabrication,  a  forgery."  According  to  the  letter,  I  was  mis- 
taken ;  and  accor<ling  to  the  letter,  I  retract  the  expressions.  And 
now  I  must  explain,  how  far,  and  why,  I  was  mistaken.  1st.  The 
words  "  near  at  hand,"  did  not  signify  the  passage  in  dispute,  as 
I  supposed,  hui  another,*\vhich  ha.d  not  been  previously  referred 
to.  2d.  The  English  expresses  the  point  in  dispute.  3d.  I  sup- 
posed that  the  Latin  was  intended  to  express  the  same  idea  con- 
veyed by  the  English.  4th.  1  saw  that,  on  this  hypothesis,  it  was 
such  Latin  as  the  fathers  of  Trent  never  would  have  used.  It 
was  a  violation  of  all  syntax  ;  tst,  by  putting  the  verb  **  imponere  " 
in  the  infinitive  mood,  without  any  word  to  govern  it;  2d,  by 
writing  the  **  oportet"  with  two  jfs  instead  of  one,  thereby  put- 
ting it  out  of  the  Latin  language;  3d,  by  putting  the  pronoun 
"illis"  as  an  adjective ;  4th,  but  putting  the  word,  ••poenitenti- 
bus," under  the  conflicting  government  of  the  verb  "  imponere," 
which  requires  the  dative  case,  and  the  preposition  ••  pro,"  which 
requires  the  ablative.  Let  any  Latin  scholar  take  the  sentence, 
as  the  gentleman  quotes  it,  and  see  whether  it  is  not  a  flagrant 
violation  of  syntax,  in  all  the  particulars  that  I  have  pointed  out. 
The  Latin  of  the  Council  of  Trent  is  not  highly  classical,  it  is 
true,  but  yet  it  is  at  least  grammatical,  as  will  be  seen  by  the 
connexion  in  the  original,  on  which  the  sense  as  well  as  the 
grammar  depends. 

"  Colligitur  praiterea,  etiam  eas  circumstantias  in  confessione 
explicandas  esse,  quae  speciem  peccati  mutant,  quod  sine  illis  pec- 
cata  ista  neque  a  pcenitentibus  integre  exponantur,  nee  judicibus 
innotescant,  et  fieri  nequeat,  ut  de  gravitate  criminum  recte  cen- 
sere  possint.  et  pceiiam  quam  oportet  pro  illis  poenitentibus  impo- 
nere.'" Here,  there  is  nothing  barbarous  or  ungrammatical ; 
whereas  the  garbled  words,  marked  in  italics,  when  presented  by 
themselves,  as  they  were  by  the  gentleman,  make  complete  non- 
sense. It  is  directed  here,  that  those  circumstances  which  alter 
the  species  of  the  sin  should  be  confessed,  as  well  as  the  sin  itself; 
and  among  the  reasons  assigned,  the  last  is,  that  otherwise  the 
priests  cannot  '*  judge  of  the  grievousness  of  the  crimes,  nor 
enjoin,  on  the  penitents  for  them  (pro  illis)  the  penance  that  ought 
to  be  enjoined."  This  is  very  different  from  •*  the  punishment 
which  ought  to  be  inflicted  on  the  penitents."  And  this,  too,  as 
a  translation  of  "  pcenam  quam  opportet  (oportet)  pro  illis  pceni- 
tentibus  imponere." 

I  may  as  well  here,  as  elsewhere,  notice  a  few  of  the  gentleman's 
scattering  remarks.  He  says,  for  instance,  that  ••  I  retreated  from 
a  half  finished  controversy  of  a  former  day."     I  wrote  the  last^  as 


112 

well  as  the  Jirst  letter  of  that  controversy  ;  and  this  is  what  the 
gentleman  calls  "  retreating."  He  says,  I  was  **  beaten  in  the 
oral  discussion."  Still,  for  sake  of  appearances,  he  should  let 
others  celebrate  his  victory.  I  am  perhaps  less  thttn  his  equal  as 
to  talents,  but  a  good  cause  gives  me  advantages  in  every  discus- 
sion involving  the  respective  characters  of  Catholicity  and  Pres- 
byterianism.  If  the  gentleman  wishes  to  triumph,  there  is  but  one 
way,  in  which  he  can  succeed — let-  him  carry  on  the  controversy 
— alone. 

In  my  last,  I  showed,  by  facts,  that  ihe  sympathy  which  he 
claimed  for  his  suffering  in  the  "  great  cause,"  was  unmerited. 
I  detailed  a  few  facts,  which  made  it  clear,  that  his  own  pen  had 
furnished  the  hardest  trials,  to  which  his  feelings  could  be  sub- 
jected. Instead  of  meeting  my  tacts  with  even  an  attempt  at  re- 
futation, he  very  politely  charges  me  with  **  audacity  and  coarse- 
ness,'''' and  then  says  that  he  is  a  mere  novice  in  abuse,  or,  as  he 
elegantly  terms  it,  '*  blackguardism." 

He  says,  "  I  refused  stoutly  to  discuss  the.  bearings  of  disci- 
pline." I  say,  that  the  offer  was  never  made  to  me,  and  conse- 
quently I  had  not  the  chance  to  refuse  it.  But  the  charge  proves 
that  he  was  not  quite  so  ignorant  of  the  difference  between  doc- 
trine and  discipline,  or  what  is  termed  canon  lau%  as  he  pretended 
at  the  opening  of  the  debate.  The  one  is  of  Divine  institution, 
and  consequently  unchangeable.  The  other  is  of  ecclesiastical 
enactment — liable  to  be  changed  by  the  authority  that  ordained 
it,  or  like  obsolete  laws  to  pass  into  desuetude,  when  the  object  of 
it  does  not  exist,  or  its  application  becomes  injurious. 

The  gentleman,  after  denying  that  the  Catholics  had  published 
forty  editions  of  the  Bible  in  Italian,  before  the  Protestants  had 
published  one,  now  begins  to  hesitate,  and  wants  to  "  see  the 
book."  Let  biin  deny  or  admit  the  fact  first,  and  then  I  shall 
consider  of  his  request.  For  he  goes  on  to  say  that,  even  if  true,  it 
was  still  nothing.  "  Publish  forty  editions  of  the  Bible,  and  then 
forbid  the  people  to  read  them!  Does  he  intend  to  insult  our  feel- 
ings by  making  a  farce  of  this  subject,  or  our  own  reason  by  such 
logic  ?"  Sure  enough  !  If  I  had  said  that  the  translators  had 
been  allowed  to  translate  the  Bible  into  Italian,  and  the  booksellers 
of  the  different  cities  to  publish  forty  editions  of  it,  with  the  ex- 
press understanding,  that  none  of  them  should  ever  be  read,  the 
gentleman  would  discover  nothing  "  farcical"  in  the  statement. 
The  logic  would  be  exactly  like  his  own — reasonable,  of  course. 
As  for  the  index,  I  have  already  disposed  of  it  in  a  former 
speech.     We  shall  now  pass  to  the  investigation  of  other  matters. 

The  gentleman  has  returned  to  the  canon  of  Lateran,  against 
the  Albigenses,  although  the  remarks  of  my  last  speech,  on  that 
subject,  should  have  been  sufficient  to  satisfy  any  candid  man. 
The  growing  light,  and  decaying  bigotry  of  Great  Britain,  had 
wrung  from  king,  lords,  and  commons,  the  public  acknowledg- 


113 

ment,  that  the  gentleman's  interpretation  of  this  canon  was  a 
libel — invented,  as  a  pretext,  for  placing  on  the  necks  of  the 
Catholics,  that  millstone  of  persecution  which  has  been  so  re- 
cently removed.  Still,  as  the  creed  of  Calvin  wraps  its  votaries 
in  that  mantle  of  "  inamissible"  intolerance,  which  is  impervious 
to  the  rays  of  light  and  of  liberality,  the  gentleman,  as  might 
have  been  expected,  contends  that  his  interpretation  of  the  fourth 
canon  of  Lateran,  is  the  true  one  :,  and  of  course,  that  the  wisdom 
of  the  British  senate  was  confounded,  in  blotting  the  infamous 
libel  from  the  statute  book.  It  remains  for  me,  then,  to  show  the 
true  bearing  of  the  case — not,  indeed,  in  the  hope  that  it  will  have 
any  effect  on  the  mind  of  those  men,  who,  as  a  preliminary  mea- 
sure, conducive  to  the  attainment  of  ulterior  ends,  have  formed  the 
unholy^combination  which  is  now  in  existence,  for  the  destruction 
of  the  Catholics — but  for  the  honest  men  of  the  country,  in  whose 
breasts  justice,  humanity,  respect  for  equal  rights^  and  liberty  of 
conscience,  prevail  over  blind  attachment  to  the  dictates  of  secta- 
rianism. 

I  said  in  my  last  speech  that  the  canon  in  question  related,  ex- 
clusively, to  the  Albigenses,  and  those  who  should   profess  their 
heresy.  Before  I  proceed  to  establish  this  proposition,  it  is  proper 
to  show,  more  at  large,  who  were  the  Albigenses,  and  what  was  the  ' 
nature  of  their  heresy,  from  the  testimony  of  cotemporary  writers. 

The  origin  of  the  errors  maintained  by  the  Albigenses,  is  traced 
to  the  Manicheans.  They  were  introduced  into  Bulgaria,  shortly 
after  the  conversion  of  that  province  to  Christianity.(l)  The  acts 
of  the  Council  of  Orleans, (2)  inform  us,  that  under  King  Robert, 
their  doctrines  were  discovered  at  Orleans,  and  were  adopted  by 
two  canons  of  that  church,  named  Heribert  and  Lisoius.  At  the 
same  time  their  disciples  appeared  in  Aquitania  and  at  Toulouse.  (3) 
They  are  expressly  ca//ec/"  Manicheans,"  and  "rejected  baptism, 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  the  chuich,  the  Redeemer,  (together  with  the 
incarnation  and  passion,)  the  veneration  of  the  saints,  the  lawful- 
ness of  marriage,  and  the  use  of  flesh  meat."(4)  Glaber,  and  the 
Chronicle  of  Saint  Cibard,  cited  by  Vignier,  call  them  Mani- 
cheans. Renier,  who  had  been  one  of  their  disciples  for  seven- 
teen years,  tells  us  that  the  errors  of  these  sects,  both  in  France 
and  Italy,  were  derived  from  the  Manicheccn  churches  of  Bulga- 
ria.(5)  And  Vignier  says  also,  that  the  Albigenses  were  called 
Bulgarians. (6) 

By  these  and  other  authorities,  it  is  manifest,  both  in  their  de- 
scent and  their  doctrines,  that  the  Albigenses  were  Manicheans. 
They  were  discovered  at  Goslar  in  Suabia,  under  Henry  IV.,  by 

(1)  Petr.  Sic.  initio  libr.  (2)  Labbe,  t.  IX.:  col.  836. 

(.3)  Baron,  t.  XI.:  an.  1017. 

(4)  Fragm.  Hist.  Aquit.  edita  a  Petro.Pithon,  ibid, 
(.5)  Rem   Cont.  Vald.  c.  6.  t.  IV.  Bibl.  P.  P.  part  ii.  p.  7r)9. 
(fi)  Bib.  His.  part  ii.  An.  1022.  p.  G72. 
15 


114 

llie  determination  witli  which  they  abhorred  all  animal  flesh. (I) 
The  Cathari,  about  Cologne,  held  the  same  abominable  doctrines 
on  the  incarnation,  and  on  marriage,  as  well  as  the  other  promi- 
nent characteristics  of  Manicheism.(2)  Instead  of  water,  they  used 
lighted  torches,  and  gave  what  they  regarded  as  the  '*  baptism  of 
fire. "(3)  They  held  that  all  flesh  was  the  creation  of  the  devil, 
and  consequently  that  the  propagation  of  the  human  species  was 
aiding  the  devil  in  perpetuating  his  work. (4)  St.  Bernard  went 
among  them  to  recall  them  from  their  errors,  by  preaching  and 
exhortation.  He  instructed  himself  thoroughly  in  their  doctrines, 
in  order  to  confute  them  ;  and  besides  their  condemnation  of  the 
baptism  of  infants,  the  invocation  of  the  saints,' prayer  for  the 
dead,  he  numbers  also  their  condemnation  of  mcirriage,  and  of 
whatever  resulted  from  the  union  of  sexes.^b)  It  is  acknow- 
ledged by  a  protestant  historian,  that  the  heretics  whom  Peter  the 
Venerable,  laboured  to  refute,  were  "  Albigenses,  under  the  name 
of  Petrobrussians."(6)  In  their  exposition  of  their  doctrine  at 
the  Council  of  Lombez,  near  Albi,  in  1176,  they  acknowledged 
that  they  rejected  the  "  Old  Testament,"  and  refused  to  acknow- 
ledge the  lawfulness  of  baptism  or  marriage. (7)  Guy  de  Nogent 
says  of  them,  in  like  manner,  that  they  rejected  all  flesh  meats,  and 
all  that  resulted  from  the  union  of  the  two  sexes. (8)  Another 
historian  of  the  eleventh  century,  gives  the  same  account  of  them, 
and  adds  expressly  their  belief  in  "  two  creators. "(9)  William 
of  Neudbridge,  in  England,  and  all  other  historians,  give  the  same 
general  account  of  their  doctrine. 

The  authors  of  the  time  distinguish  between  the  Albigenses  and 
the  Waldenses,  who  were  entirely  a  distinct  sect,  and  who  were 
not  even  charged  with  having  held  the  abominable  doctrines,  which 
rendered  the  Albigenses  so  unspeakably  infamous.  Such  were 
the  origin,  descent,  and  anti-human  tenets  of  the  Albigenses,  as 
set  forth  by  all  the  cotemporary  historians  that  ever  wrote  of 
them.  They  were,  indeed,  called  by  different  names,  as  I  men- 
tioned in  my  last  speech.  And  it  is  a  mere  quibble,  to  say,  as  the 
gentleman  does,  that  they  are  to  be  considered  as  acquitted  of  these 
charges,  on  the  ground  that  Mosheim  does  not  call  them  Albigen- 
ses, ^yhen  he  is  detailing  their  infamies.  They  are  known  by  the 
generic  term  Albigenses,  just- as  the  descendants  of  the  pretended 
Reformation  are  spoken  of  as  Protestants.     And  to  say  that  they 

(1)  Centuriat.  in  Cent.  XI.  c.  5. 

(2)  Eckbert,  Serm.  XIII.  Adv.  Caih.  t.  IV.,  Bibl.  P.  P.  part  ii. 

(3)  Serm.  I.  .VIII.  XI. 

(4)  Eckbert,  Serm.  IV. 

(5)  St.  Bern.  Serm.  LXVI.  in  Cant.  No.  9. 

(6)  Laroc.  Hist,  de  I'Euch.  452,  453. 

(7)  Acta  Con.  Lumb.  t.  X.  Labb.  Con.  col.  1471. 

(8)  De  vita  sua,  lib.  III.  c.  16. 

(9)  Radulphus  Ardens,  Serm.  in  Dom.  VIII.  past.  Trin.  t.  ii. 


115 

were  not  Albigeiises,  because  iMosheim  speaks  of  them  as  "  Breth- 
ren of  the  Free  Spirit,"  &;c.,  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  of  Scotland  are  not  Protestants,  because  they 
are  called  Presbyterians.  Besides,  Moshein>was  their  apologist. 
The  protestants  wanted  an  appearance  of  ecclesiastical  descent 
from  the  Apostles,  and  as  the  Albigenses  had  protested  against  the 
Church  of  Rome,  they  were  considered  a  very  important  link  in 
the  chain  of  ecclesiastical  ancestry.  Mosheim,  therefore,  as  was 
natural,  was  tender  on  the  horrible  vices  of  his  religious  fore- 
fathers ;  and  when  he  speaks  of  their  unnatural  tenets,  and  the 
crimes  which  resulted  from  them,  he  calls  them  by  some  specific 
name,  and  sinks  the  general  appellation  by  which  they  are  known 
in  cotemporary  history. 

Let  any  man  apply-the  doctrines  of  the  Albigenses,  simply  on 
two  points,  viz.  the  tenet  that  the  devil  was  the  creator  of  the 
visible  world ;  and  that,  in  order  to  avoid  co-operation  with  the 
devil  in  continuing  his  work,  the  faithful  should  take  measures 
by  which  the  human  race  should  come  to  an  end ;  and  then  say 
whether  those  errors  were  merely  speculative.  They  were,  on  the 
contrary,  pregnant  with  destruction  to  society.  Was  it  persecu- 
tion ;  or  rather,  was  it  not  self-preservation,  to  arrest  those  errors  ? 
We  shall  see  presently,  however,  that  these  men,  like  the  Cal- 
vinists  in  France  at  a  later  period,  took  up  the  sword  of  sedition, 
and  wielded  it  against  the  government  under  which  they  lived. 
We  shall  see,  that  long  before  the  canon  of  Lateran  was  passed, 
their  course  was  marked  with  plunder,  rapine,  bloodshed.  And 
if  so,  it  follows  that  their  crimes  against  society,  springing  from 
their  doctrines,  constitute  the  true  reason  of  the  severity  of  the 
enactment  against  them. 

Their  existence  was  known  from  the  year  1022.  If,  then,  the 
extermination  of  heretics  had  been  a  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  why  were  they  not  exterminated  from  the  first  ?  If  it  was 
not  a  doctrine  of  the  church  in  1022,  it  was  not  a  doctrine  in 
1215;  for  the  gentleman  himself  admits  and  proclaims  that  our 
doctrines  never  change.  Why  then  did  not  the  Catholics  exter- 
minate them  at  once  ?  Is  it  that  they  were  not  able?  No:  for 
at  first  the  heresy  had  but  few  supporters.  But  why  were  they 
afterwards  persecuted?  The  reason  is,  that  in  the  interval  they 
had  proceeded  to  sustain  and  propagate  their  infernal  principles,  by 
violence.  They  had  placed  themselves  undei  the  patronage  of 
factions  and  rebellious  barons,  and  had  fought  in  pitched  battles 
against  their  sovereigns.  In  the  former  controversy,  the  gentle- 
man garbled  the  twenty-seventh  canon  of  the  third  Council  of 
Tiateran,  to  show  that  these  poor  heretics  were  condemned  to  awr 
ful  penalties,  for  nothing  at  all  but  protesting  against  the  errors  ol 
the  Church  of  Rome.  This  he  did  by  quoting  the  beginning  -awA 
conclusion  of  the  canon,  and,  without  indicating  any  omission, 
suppressing  the  crimes  of  these  proto-maityrs  of  Calvinism.     It 


116 

was  proved,  by  llie  very  document  from  which  lie  quoted,  that  these 
lambs  of  the  Albigeiisian  fold  were   '•  exercising  such  cruelty 

ON  THE  CHRISTIANS,  (1.  C.  CATHOLICS,)  THAT  THEY  PAID  NO  RE- 
SPECT TO  CHURCHES  OR  MONASTERIES,  SPARED  NEITHER  VIRGINS 
NOR  WIDOWS,  NEITHER  OLD  NOR  YOUNG,  NEITHER  SEX  NOR  AGE,  BUT 
AFTER  THE  MANNER  OF    PAGANS  DESTROYED  AND  DESOLATED    EVERY 

THING." — When  I  discovered  the  fraud,  and  asked  him  to  account 
for  it,  his  defence  is  that  he  copied  from  the  Rev.  Stanly  Faber ! 
— or  rather,  in  his  own  words,  "Faber  quotes  just  as  I  have 
done;"  as  if  he  and  Faber  were  joint  partners  in  the  glory  of  the 
fraud  !  At  all  events,  the  crimes  of  which  they  were  convicted, 
show  that  the  penalties  enacted  against  them,  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury afterwards,  at  the  fourth  Council  of  Lateran,  were  founded 
on  other  reasons  besides  the  mere  fact  of  their  heretical  doctrine 
— blasphemous  and  shocking  as  this  was. 

Now,  I  leave  it  to  the  common  sense  and  candour  of  any  un- 
biassed man  in  this  assembly,  to  decide,  even  on  the  strongest  case 
of  supposed   persecution  recorded   in   ecclesiastical  history — the 
case  of  the  Albigenses — whether  that  case,  adduced  to  prove  that 
intolerance  and  persecution  is  a  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
does  not  prove,  in  fair  reasoning,  the  very  reverse.  Here  is  a  sect, 
beginning,  as  all  sects  do,  with  a  few  individuals,  appearing  in 
the  very  heart  of  Catholic  Europe,  and,  on  the  gentleman's  hypo- 
thesis, creating  a  public,  notorious  sin — as  extensive  as  the  Church 
— viz.  the  sin  of  permitting  these  heretics  to  live  and  increase  for 
two  hundred  years  previous  to  the  fourth  Lateran  Council,  in  open 
violation  of  their  own  supposed  doctrine  !     If  their  extermination 
had  been  a  doctrine  ;  if,  like  the  Presbyterians  at  this  day,  and  in 
the  United  States,  the  Catholic  Church  had  taught  as.  the  command- 
ment of  God,  the  obligation  "  to  remove  all  false  worship,"  "ac- 
cording to  each  one's  place  and  calling,"  binding  the  conscience 
of  every  man,  from  the  Pope  down  to  the  acolythe,  and  from  the 
king  down  to  the  peasant — I  ask  whether  the  Albigensian  heresy 
would  not  have  been  extinguished  in  the  blood  of  its  first  profes- 
sors ?    .AVas  it  regarded  as  a  sin,  a  violation  of  Catholic  doctrine, 
to  have  let  them  live  ?     Never.     Was  there  any  example  in  those 
ages,  of  what  Presbyterians  have  since  done,  when,  with  hearts 
steeled  by  Calvinism,  and  faces  bent  upwards,  they  were  appeas- 
ing oilended  Heaven  for  their  "sin;"  and  that  of  the  English  go- 
vernment, in  "  conniving  at  popery?"   Never.  Were  the  Albigenses 
condemned  to  suffer  death  for  an  act  o(  private  worship,  as  the 
Catholics  were  by  the  Presbyterian  laws  of  Scotland  ?     Never. 
Did  the  Catholics  destroy  the  Presbyterian  "churches,"  "spare 
neither  virgins  nor  widows,  neither  old  nor  young,  neither  age 
nor  sex,"  "  but  after  the  manner  of  Pagans  destroy  every  thing?" 
Never. — And  yet,  more  than  a   quarter  of  a  century  before  the 
fourth  Council  of  Lateran,  the  Albigenses  had  committed  all  these 
excesses  against  the  Catholics.     Here  then  is  a  sect,  in  the  midst 


117 

of  the  dark  ages,  and  in  the  midst  of  Catholic  nations,  and  instead 
of  being  extinguished  on  its  first  appearance,  it  is  allowed  to  grow, 
swelling  its  numbers,  until  it  is  able  to  set  public  authority  at  de- 
fiance, and  to  become  the  persecutor  of  those  Catholics  to  whose 
toleration  ov  forbearance  it  was  indebted  for  its  numbers,  and  even 
its  existence  !  Will  the  gentleman  say  that  the  heretics  were  too 
numerous?  But  their  very  numbers  is  a  refutation  of  his  argu- 
ment. To  what  were  they  indebted  for  their  numbers,  but  to  that 
forbearance  which  he  says  it  was  contrary  to  Catholic  doctrine  to 
exercise.  Power  for  their  extermination  was  not  wanting  at  any 
time.  And  if  that  power  ivas  exercised  finally,  it  was  not  until 
after  their  excesses,  the  result  of  their  errors,  had  made  it  manifest 
that  either  they,  or  the  Catholics,  must  yield  to  the  superiority  of 
force,  instead  of  laws?  which  they  trampled  on. 

It  was  in  this  state  of  things,  two  hundred  years  after  the  first 
appearance  of  the  Albigensian  heresy,  and  twenty-five  years  after 
the  third  Council  of  Lateran  in  1179,  in  which  their  crimes  against 
public  rights  are  specified,  that  the  fourth  General  Council  of 
Lateran  was  convened  in  1215.  Now  the  decree  of  that  council, 
which  the  gentleman  and  his  illiberal  colleagues  would  manufac- 
ture into  a  Catholic  doctrine  binding  on  all  Catholics,  and  applica- 
ble to  all  heretics,  was  directed,  so  far  as  it  was  penal  in  its 
enactments,  against  the  Albigenses  alone.  Every  other  means 
had  been  resorted  to,  during  the  period  of  two  hundred  years,  and 
the  growing  desperation  of  the  disease  seemed  to  require  strong 
measures  for  the  purpose  of  arresting  its  progress.  Hence  the 
ambassadors  from  almost  all  the  governments  of  Europe  concurred 
in,  and  probably  instigated,  the  provisions  of  the  canon,  which 
were  regarded  as  essential  to  their  security. 

In  order  not  to  be  misunderstood,  I  deem  it  proper  to  state,  that 
in  detailing  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  canon  against  the 
Albigenses,  passed  in  the  Council  of  Lateran,  my  object  is  not  to 
vindicate  the  measure,  but  to  submit  the  information  that  may 
enable  this  audience  and  our  readers  to  form  tkfeir  own  judgment 
and  conclusion  on  the  whole  premises.  The  case  will  afford  me 
an  opportunity  of  establishing  the  distinction  between  the  acts  of 
a  general  council,  which  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Catholic  re- 
ligion oblige  every  member  of  the  communion  to  receive,  as  a 
*'  tenet  of  faith  and  morals  revealed  by  Almighty  God," — and 
other  acts,  which  have  no  such  claim  to  our  belief  or  obedience. 

The  Fourth  General  Council  of  Lateran  was  assembled  espe- 
cially for  the  purpose  of  condemning  the  errors  of  the  Albigensian 
heresy.  In  this  capacity,  it  was  infallible — because,  as  the  repre- 
sentative organ  of  the  church,  it  was  discharging  the  duty  for  which 
the  church  was  divinely  instituted — namely,  "teaching  all  truth," 
and  consequently,  condemning  all  error.  But  when  they  pass 
from  the  definitions  of  doctrines  to  the  enactments  of  civil  or 
bodily  penalties,  their  decisions  are  sustained  by  no  promise  of 


lis 

infallibility,  and  by  no  authority  derived  from  God  for  that  pur- 
pose. AViiatever  right  they  may  have  derived  from  other  sources 
or  circumstances  to  inflict  cfyi/  punishment,  it  is  certain  that  they 
have  derived  none  from  their  vocation  to  the  holy  ministry  or  the 
imposition  of  hands.  If  Gregory  XVI.  were  a  wanderer  on  the 
Alps  or  Appenines,  and  like  his  divine  master,  not.  having  where 
to  lay  his  head,  he  would  be  as  much  the  supreme  pastor  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  ns  he  is,  beneath  the  lofty  dome  of  St.  Peter's. 
It  is  not  because  he  is  the  temporal  ruler  of  a  portion  of  Italy, 
that  the  eyes  of  the  catholic  world  are  turned  to  him  as  the  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter,  and  visible  head  of  Christ's  Church  on  earth. 
Hence  the  important  distinction  to  which  I  have  alludeti.  The 
power  which  God  imparted  to  his  church  is  spiritual.  The 
exercise  of  temporal  or  civil  power  is  of  human  origin,  and  con- 
stitutes no  part  or  portion  of  the  Catholic  religion. 

Here  the  gentleman  ought  to  make  a  show  of  great  •  surprise  at 
the  boldness  of  my  assertion.  He  ought  to  pretend  that  I  am 
guilty  of  heresy  in  making  it.  In  fact,  the  assertions  are  not  mine. 
They  are  the  assertions  of  the  Universities  of  Paris,  Douay,  Lou- 
vain,  Alcala,  Salamanca  and  Vallodolid,  in  reply  to  the  questions 
put  by  Mr.  Pitt  in  1798.  Does  the  gentleman  wish  a  higher 
authority?  Then  I  give  him  that  of  the  Pope  himself,  Pius  VI. 
in  his  rescript  to  the  archbishops  of  Ireland  in  1791.  (1) 

The  principal  question  now  is,  whether  the  canon  of  the  fourth 
Lateran  was  directed  against  all  heretics  and  heresies,  or  whether 
it  was,  in  its  penal  enactments,  pointed  against  the  Albigenses 
alone.  Let  us  see.  Here  are  the  whole  acts  of  the  council  on 
the  table,  and-  I  challenge  the  gentleman  to  the  investigation. 
Now  the  text  of  the  council  shows  the  nature  of  the  heresy  which 
it  condemned.  It  defines  the  existence  of  one  God  or  lirst  prin- 
ciple, the  creator  of  all  things,  and  teaches  that  the  devils  were 
not  from  all  eternity  evil,  but  fell  by  sin ;  and  it  goes  on  to  teach 
that  persons  are  saved  in  the  state  of  marriage,  &c.  Wliy  define 
these  DOCTRINES?  Because  the  heretics,  against  whom  the  third 
canon  was  directed,  held  the  errors  opposed  to  these  definitions. 
They  believed  that  there  were  two  first  principles — God  and  tlie 
devil.  They  believed  that  both  were  eternal.  They  believed  that 
God,  the  good  principle,  was  the  author  of  souls  and  of  the  New 
Testament;  and  that  the  devil,  the  evil  principle,  was  the  au- 
thor of  the  Old  Testament,  creator  of  the  material  world,  and 
of  the  human  body;  and  hence,  that  marriage,  with  its  conse- 
quences, was  a  co-operation  with  \he  principle  of  evil,  and  ren- 
dered salvation  impossible. 

Now  I  say  that  the  provisions  of  the  canon,  of  which  there  is 
now  question,  had  reference  to  the  believers  in  these  abominable 

(1)  See  the  whole  in  the  Appendix  to  "Catholic  Question  in  America," 
by  William  Sampson,  Esq.  of  New  York. 


119 

impieties,  and  the  evidence  is  found  in  the  text  itself,  where  the 
words  "  hasc  hwreUcs.  fee  (lit  as, ^^  "  this  heretical^/^/i,"  are  expressly 
used.  Again,  where  the  words  "universi  ha^retici,  quibuscunque 
nominibus  censeantur,"— r"all  heretics,  under  whatever  name  they 
may  come,"  are  employed  ;  tlie  same  limitation  is  found  in  the 
context,  in  the  words,  "  adversus  heme  sanctam,  orthodoxam, 
catholicam  fidem,  qicam  superius  exposicimus.'"  Thai  is,  "  in 
opposition  to  this,  holy,  orthodox,  catholic  faith,  which  we  have 
exposed  above.""  What  was  that  faith?  The  faith  of  one  only 
eternal  God — creator  of  all  things,  Slc.  Consequently,  the  exten- 
sion of  the  third  canon  is  restricted  to  those  who  held  the  opposite 
errors.  Now,  if  the  gentleman  will  only  condescend  to  distrust 
his  knowledge  as  a  production  of  instinct  or  inspiration,  and  just 
take  the  trouble  to  examine  the  text,  he  will  see  all  I  have  said. 
But,  says  he,  they  were  not  called  Albigenses;  and  Mosheim 
speaks  of  them  as  connected  with  the  brethren  of  the  spirit.  Now, 
if  he  will  again  condescend  to  examine  the  text,  he  will  find  that 
they  are  spoken  of  as  having  "  different  faces,"  but  yet  as  being 
"joined  together  by  the  tails."  That  is,  they  had  different  ap- 
pellations derived  from  their  different  "  faces,"  but  in  the  doc- 
trines which  constituted  their  bond  of  union  "  haec  haeretica  fcedi- 
tas,"  one  appellation  was  applied  to  them  all — Albigenses.  It  was 
on  this  account,  that  in  my  last  speech  I  remarked,  that  men  of  in- 
formation must  laugh  or  blush,  as  the  matter  may  affect  them,  to 
hear  ignorant  advocates  numbering  the  horrible  Albigenses  among 
the  religious  ancestors  of  Protestantism.  I  have  now  established 
the  first  fact,  in  opposition  to  the  gentleman's  hypothesis,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  canon  of  Lateran  extends  to  all  heretics  that  ever 
were,  or  ever  will  be.  It  is,  in  its  very  language,  restricted  to  the 
Albigenses.  The  gentleman  and  all  his  anti-Catholic  colleagues  are 
sadly  moitified  to  discover  that  the  Catholic  religion  will  not  be  as 
bad  as  they  wish.  If  it  would  only  accommodate  them,  by  be- 
coming all  that  malevolence  has  invented,  and  ignorance  believed, 
it  would  suit  their  purpose  exactly,  and  they  could  say  what  they 
do  say  of  it,  without  the  inconvenience  of  uttering  calumnies. 

We  have  seen  secondly,  by  the  highest  Catholic  authority,  the 
Universities  of  France,  Belgium  and  Spain,  supported  by  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Pope  himself,  that  neither  pope,  nor  cardinal,  nor 
bishops,  nor  altogether  have  any  right  resulting  from  the  doctrines 
of  the  Catholic  religion,  to  dispense  with  oaths,  release'  subjects 
from  fidelity  to  their  governments,  depose  rulers  on  account  of  dif- 
ference of  religion,  or  to  exercise  any  civil  authority  over  Catho- 
lics, by  virtue  of  their  ecclesiastical  office.  If,  therefore,  the  canon 
in  question  confiscated  the  goods,  2ind  punished  the  bodies  of  the 
Albigensian  heretics,  my  answer  is,  that  the  doctrines  of  the 
Catholic  Church  do  not  recognise  or  admit  the  right  of  a  general 
council  to  either  confiscate  goods  or  punish  bodies.  If  the  gen- 
tleman can  show  me  the  '*  canon  of  a  General  Council,  or  the  bull 


120 

of  a  Pope,  setting  forth  as  '  an  article  of  faith  or  morals  revealed 
hy  Almighty  God,''  "  that  such  a  right  exists,  or  did  exist  in  any 
ao-e  of  the  church,  I  give  up  the  argument.  But  if  he  cannot,  let 
him  give  up  the  attempt  to  prove  it.  Again,  is  it  not  surprising 
that  the  gendeman  has  not  been  struck  with  the  absurdity  of  the 
conckision  to  which  his  argument  would  lead.  He  makes  us  hold 
a  doctrine,  as  he  pretends,  a  canon  wliich  we  never  could  comply 
with,  until  Protestants  come  to  hold  the  abominations  of  the  Albi- 
genses,  and  till  the  world  returns  to  that  identical  condition  of 
civil  governments,  in  which  it  was  in  the  year  1215.  Kings  and 
feudal  barons,  vassals,  and  all  gradations  of  the  feudal  system 
must  return,  before  the  provisions  of  this  canon  could  be  put  in 
practice ! 

But  when  the  gentleman  is  bent  on  carrying  an  argument, 
absurdities  do  not  aJETright  him,  and  impossibilities  are  but  as 
straws  in  his  way. 

Having  disposed  of  the  substance  of  the  gentleman's  argument, 
I  shall  now  pro(!eed  to  take  him  on  the  small  points  with  which 
it  is  suirounded. 

He  says,  that  in  translating  the  words  "  ssecularibus  potestatibus 
prossentibiis,^^  the  "  secular  powers  present^^  at  the  council,  I 
committed  a  mistake  which  "  every  schoolboy  that  has  read  Cor- 
dery  could  correct."  Now,  between  "present"  and  "  absent," 
there  is  no  medium,  and  since  he  and  the  schoolboys  have  deter- 
mined ihsit  prsesentibus  means  "absent"  or  ^' not  present,"  of 
course,  I  have  only  to  bow  submission  to  their  authority.  He 
says  I  charge  him  with  having  omitted  the  word  '■'■  prsesentibus^'' 
on  a  former  occasion.  I  did ;  and  he  does  not  venture  to  say  that 
the  charge  was  unfounded.  He  says  I  qualified  the  charge  by 
the  word  "  fraudulently."  I  deny  it,  and  call  for  his  proof. 
Child  of  Antichrist 'although  he  supposes  me,  I  have  too  much 
charity  to  suppose  him  under  the  influence  of  knowledge  and 
malice  at  the  same  time.  Another  reason  why  our  critic  thinks 
"  praesentibus"  ought  to  be  translated  "not  present,"  is  that 
although  expressed  when  the  reference  is  first  made  to  the  "  secu- 
lar pov/ers,"  it  is  not  repeated  at  every  subsequent  reference — as 
if  the  original  determination  of  the  sense,  did  not  render  the  repe- 
tition superfluous. 

But  admiiting,  as  he  does, /or  argument  sake,  that  the  word 
"  praesentibus"  means  "  present,"  he  arrives  at  the  conclusion, 
even  by  my  own  showing,  that  there  was  a  "  church  and  state" — 
as  if  this  point  of  history  were  a  new  discovery. 

The  gentleman  calls  me  a  "  falsifier  of  Mosheim."  I  fling  the 
imputation  back  upon  iiim,  and  call  for  his  proof.  I  have  already 
pointed  out  the  reason  of  any  apparent  discrepancy,  between  my 
account  of  the  Albigenses,  and  that  given  by  Mosheim.  I  have 
access  to  the  originals,  and  can  see  in  every  page  of  Mosheim  the 
struggle  between  the  protestant  and  the  historian.     In  his  estima- 


121 

lion,  to  have  opposed  the  church,  was,  like  the  virtue  of  charity, 
enough  to  cover  a  "  muUitude  of  sins."  But  even  Mosheim  ad- 
raits  enough  to  sustain  all  1  have  said.  He  tells  us  that  the  term 
*'  Albigenses"  was  used  in  two  senses.  He  states,  on  the  autho- 
rity of  Petrus  Sarmensis,  that  the  general  appellation  of  all  the 
various  kinds  of  heretics,  who  resided  in  the  southern  parts  of 
France  was  Jilbigenses.  He  tells  us  that  this  term,  "  in  its  more 
confined  sense,  was  used  to  denote  those  heretics  who  were 
inclined  to  the  Manichsean  system,  and  who  were  otherwise 
known  by  the  denominations  of  Catharists,  Publicans,  or  Pauli- 
cians  and  Bulgarians. "(1)  And  pray  have  not  I  identified  them 
by  theii  "  Manichaean  doctrines" — their  descent  from  the  "  Pauli- 
cians,"  who  were  Manichaeans — and  their  having  come  from  Bul- 
garia ?  Mosheim  does  not  give  any  name  to  those  '<  fanatics,"  as 
he  calls  them,  whose  "  shocking  violation  of  decency,"  he  tells 
us,  "  was  a  consequence  of  their  pernicions  system."  What  was 
this  but  the  Manichaean  system  ?  And  since  those  who  held  or 
inclined  to  this  system,  were  called,  even  in  the  stricter  sense  of 
the  term,  Albigenses,  as  Mosheim  tells  us,  was  la"  falsifier" 
in  calling  them  by  that  name?  When  Mosheim  tells  us,  notwith- 
standing their  "  Manichaean  system,"  that  the  Albigenses  were 
very  "  sincere  in  their  piety,"  he  speaks  as  a  partizan,  giving  his 
opinion;  whereas  the  facts  stated  by  himself,  as  an  historian,  are 
suflFicient  to  prove  their  abandoned  principles  both  in  doctrine  and 
morals.  To  talk  about  their  "  sincerity,"  is  not  to  the  purpose. 
He  admits,  and  the  gentleman  quotes  it  as  a  vindication,  that  they 
were  the  same  as  the  Paulicians ;  and  this  settles  the  question. 
The  Paulicians  being  the  name  of  the  Manichaeans  in  Armenia, 
from  whence  their  doctrine  passed  into  Bulgaria,  and  thence  into 
Italy,  France  and  Germany,  as  we  have  seen  above.  Finally, 
Mosheim's  testimony  against  the  principles  of  these  sects,  is  that 
of  a  friend;  and  it  was  on  this  account  that  I  quoted  him  at  all. 
For  the  rest,  I  have  the  cotemporary  witnesses  of  their  abomina- 
ble doctrines  and  practices ;  and  who  are  the  only  sources  of 
information  on  which  modern  writers,  including  Mosheim  him- 
self, have  to  draw. 

When  the  gentleman  tells  us,  on  the  authority  of  Mosheim, 
that  the  Pope  "  persuaded  Frederic  II.  and  Louis  IX.  to  enact 
barbarous  laws  against  heretics,"  he  furnishes  the  refutation  of  his 
own  argument,  and  I  am  surprised  that  he  had  not  sagacity  enough 
to  see  it.  For  since  the  Pope  had  to  persuade  them,  it  is  evident 
that,  to  this  persuasion  by  the  Pope,  and  not  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  the  persecution  is  to  be  ascribed.  If  ithad 
been  a  doctrine,  the  Pppe,  instead  of  persuading  them  to  do  it, 
would  have  excommunicated  them  for  having  left  it  undone. 

He  charges  me  with  haying  said  that  it  was  "  doctrine  in  Scot- 

(1)  Mosh.  Bait.  ed.  Vol.  II.  p.  375.     Note. 
16. 


122 

land  to  cut  men's  cars  ofl'."  He  mistakes;  it  was  New  Eng- 
land, I  said.  In  "  Scotland"  something  more  than  the  *' ears" 
was  required  as  the  penalty  of  worshipping  God  according  to  con- 
science. But  he  wonders  why  such  things  were  "doctrine"- 
among  Presbyterians,  and  not  doctrines  among  Catholics.  I  will 
inform  him.  The  Presbyterians  held  that  their  right  to  do  so, 
was  a  "  TEXKT  REVEALED  BY  Almighty  God."  Consequently 
with  them  it  ivas  a  "  doctrine."  The  Catholics  never  held,  that 
their  right  tp  do  so,  was  a  "  tenet  of  revelation;"  but  invariably 
derived  their  right,  so  called,  from  either  the  destructive  nature 
of  the  heresy^  the  crimes  of  the  heretics.,  the  loill  of  the  govern- 
ment, or  the  dictates  of  self-preservation,  which  the  almost  uni- 
form seditious  spirit  of  heresy  often  called  into  operation.  Does 
the  gentleman  now  understand  the  difference? 

I  said,  in  a  former  Controversy,  as  he  remarks,  that  "the 
secular  representatives  (at  the  Council  of  Lateran)  had  nothing  to 
(To  with  the  definitions  of  doctrine  and  morals."  I  say  so  still, 
and  the  fact  is  as  universal  as  the  history  of  the  church.  Has  he 
discovered  any  thing  to  the  contrary?  In  consequence  of  my 
having  said  so,  he  remarks  "  such  writers  need  good  memories." 
What  docs  he  mean?  Oh!  I  perceive.  The  "  secular  am"bassa- 
dors"  of  Christendom  were  at  the  Council  of  Lateran, — major. 
But  the  pronoun  "  we"  is  found  in  the  third  canon  against  the 
Albigenses,  in  connexion  with  the  faith  which  had  before  been 
"  expounded," — minor.  And  therefore  we  means  the  secular  am- 
bassadors,/ie/j^mo*  to  "expound"  the  faith, — conclusion.  This 
seems  to  be  the  gentleman's  logic,  and  though  it  may  pass  in  the 
anti-popery  schools,  it  cannot  pass  wherever  common  sense  is  per- 
mitted to  wield  the  ferule.  He  uses  also  tht^  term  "  doctrine- 
making  council."  Now  you  all  recollect  that  the  doctrine  ex- 
pounded was  the  existence  of  only  one  God  and  the  sanctity  of 
marriage,  and  you  see  how  far  the  council  deserves  to  be  called  a 
"  doctrine-making"  council — whether  with  or  without  the  help  of 
the  "secular  ambassadors."  No;  the  time  for  these  things  was 
reserved  for  the  minority  of  Presbyterianism,  when  orthodoxy  was 
to  be  looked  for  in  acts  of  parliament,  and  in  oaths,  leagues  and 
covenants ;  and  when  the  civil  magistrate,  good  man,  w^as  to  see 
that  whatever  should  be  done  in  ecclesiastical  assemblies  should 
bd"  "  according  to  the  mind  of  God.(1) 

1  stated  that  the  authenticity  of  this  canon  was  disputed  by 
Protestant  as  well  as  Catholic  historians.  The  gentleman,  as  we 
shall  presently  see,  has  not  been  able  to  controvert  the  truth  of 
the  statement.  But,  he  says,  admitting  it,  what  becomes  of  the 
"  unerting  guide,  the  faithful  tradition  of  the  Church  of  Rome?" 
I  answer,  that  the  "  unerring  guide"  and  "  faithful  tradition"  would 

(1)  See  [Genuine]  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  23,  "Of  Civil 
Magistrates." 


123 

be  no  more  affected  by  it,  than  the  gentleman's  identity  would  be, 
by  his  inability  to  tell  whether  a  certain  button  on  his  coat,  had 
been  sewed  on  by  his  tailor,  or  by  his  laundress. 

Now  we  come  to  the  criticism  on  the  authenticity  of  the  canon 
in  question.  Before  I  notice  what  he  has  said  on  this  subject,  it 
is  necessary  to  state  that  what  is  commonly  called  the  third  canon  of 
the  fourth  Latcran,  is  composed  of  five  chapters  or  sections.  Each 
of  these  has  its  own  specific  import,  and  in  Caranza  its  own  spe- 
cific heading.  The  second,  under  the  heading  "  Quod  juramentum 
debeant  pra^stare  seeculares  potestates,"  is  the  portion  of  whose 
authority  there  is  a  doubt  among  critics.  And  it  was  of  this 
section,  which  is  more  properly  a  chapter  than  a  "  canon,"  that 
I  said,  it  is  regarded  by  critics  as  '*  spurious — an  interpolation 
in  the  genuine  acts  of  the  council."  .Tliis  chapter  is  neither 
the  beginning,  "  middle,"  or  end  of  the  canon  ;  it  is  distinct  and  by 
itself — having  no  necessary  connexion  with  what  goes  before  or 
comes  after.  This  is  the  section  that  is  considered  spurious. 
This  is  the  section  which  is  wanting  in  the  Mazarine  copy,  "  in 
Latin"  as  well  iis  Greek.  Here  the  gentleman  has  betrayed  him- 
self. He  professes  to  quote  the  marginal  note  of  Labbe,  "  Deest 
hie  folium  in  codice  Gra^co  et  Latino.,''^  and  leaves  out  flie  words 
"  et  Latino."  He  must  have  seen  with  his  eyes,  therefore,  that  the 
same  leaf  which  was  wanting  in  the  Greek  of  the  Mazarine  copy 
was  wanting  also  in  the  Latin  copy.  And  yet  he  says  that  "  Labbe 
follows  the  Mazarine  copy,"  in  giving  that  part  of  the  canon 
which  Labbe  himself  says  does  not  exist  in  that  copy,  either  in 
the  Greek  or  Latin !  If  it  does  exist  in  Latin,  why  does  Labbe 
say  that  it  does  not ;  if  it  does  not  exist,  as  the  gentleman  saw  by 
the  marginal  note,  why  does  he  say  that  "  Labbe  followed  it?" 
Let  him'  answer  that  question. 

He  says,  that  independently  of  this  omitted  section,  we  have  the 
^'''exterminating  part  at  least."  I  deny  the  truth  of  the  assertion. 
Here  are  the  acts  of  the  council,  and  I  call  on  him  for  the  proof. 
Collier,  the  gentleman. has  told  you,  only  states  that  it  is  wanting 
in  the  Mnzarine  copy;  and  this  was  one  of  Collier's  reasons  for 
doubting  its  authority.  Does  not  even  this  determine  the  truth 
of  what  my  opponent  has  ventured  to  assert  was  "not"  true?" 
But  why  select  Collier,  and  pass  over  the  other  authorities  adduced 
in  ray  last  speech?  I  bring  a  host  of  witnesses,  and  instead  of 
rebutting  their  evidence,  he  challenges  tlie  testimony  of  one,  and 
he  a  Protestant,  who  sustains  me  nevertheless,  whilst  all  the  others 
remain  unanswered,  undisputed. 

The  gentleman  represents  me  as  "  uncandid"  for  not  stating 
that  "  Crabbe's  edition  of  the  councils  published  in  1530  no^ie  of 
the  four  Lateran's  canons."  Tbere  might  be  some  foundation 
for  the  charge,  if  I  had  not  assigned  the  reason  why  the  portion 
of  which  I  was  speaking,  could  not  have  been  published  in  1530: 
namely,  that  it  was  not  known  as  a  part  of  what  is  called  the 


124      • 

third  canon  "  until  1537."  This  seemed  to  me  a  suflicient  reason 
wily  it  should  not  be  in  the  edition  of  1530;  and  I  was  not  speak- 
ing of  the  other  canons. 

He  says  that  "  the  said  Crabbe  published  afterwards  three 
editions  of  the  councils  in  which  the  said  canon  is  found."  If 
this  be  true,  the  fact  cannot  be  explained  except  by  taking  it  for 
granted  that  Crabbe  published  two  editions  after  his  death,  just  for 
the  gentleman's  accommodation. 

We  now  come  to  Matthew  Paris  and  Du  Pin.  I  claimed  these 
as  rejecting  the  canon.  He  says  this  "  is  not  true."  And  yet,  he 
himself  establishes  the  fact,  by  the  very  passages  he  brings  to  dis- 
prove it.  Matthew  Paris,  even  as  quoted  by  the  gentleman,  says 
that  the  whole  seventy  chapters  on  being  read  in  the  council, 
*'  seemed  tolerable  to  some,  and  grievous  to  others."  Does  this 
prove  that  the  section  of  the  third  canon,  now  under  consideration, 
was  then  incorporated  in  the  seventy  chapters  ?  No.  It  leaves 
that  question  untouched.  Does  it  prove  that  the  seventy  chapters 
themselves  were  the  "genuine  acts  of  the  council?  No  such 
thing.  If  it  proves  any  thing,  it  proves  the  contrary.  The  docu- 
ment was  read  to  the  council — it  "  seemed  grievous"  to  some, 
and  only  "  tolerable"  to  others ; — therefore  it  ivas  the  genuine 
act  of  the  council,  and  Mr.  Hughes  says  that  which  is  "  not  true" 
when  he  asserts  the  contrary !  Du  Pin  says,  "  Let  the  case  be  as 
it  will,  IT  IS  CERTAIN  that  these  canons  were  not  made  by  the 
council,  but  by  Innocent  III."  Therefore,  says  my  logical  friend, 
Mr.  Hughes  said  what  is  "  not  true"  when  he  quoted  Du  Pin  as 
not  admitting  these  to  be  the  genuine  acts  of  the  council !  But 
his  commentary  on  Du  Pin  is  worthy  of  his  text.  He  tells  us 
that  on  hearing  them  read  "  none  were  satisfied" — and  yet  he 
maintains  that  they  were  the  genuine  acts  of  the  council !  When 
he  contradicts  himself,  it  is  not  strange  that  he  should  contradict 
me. 

But  Dr.  Crotty,  the  gentleman  says,  had  admitted  the  substance 
of  these  canons  to  be  the  acts  of  the  council — in  his  examination 
before  the  commissioners  of  parliament.  Granted.  So  far  as"  the 
doctrihes  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  affected  by  them,  I  have  no 
objection  to  make  the  admission  myself.  But  it  does  not  follow, 
that  Dr.  Ciotty  could  not,  or  that  I  should  not,  give  good  reasons 
to  prove  that  the  documents,  or  at  least  a  portion  of  them,  which 
have  been  made  a  pretext  for  the  persecution  of  Catholics  in  Great 
Britain  for  three  hundred  years,  are  of  douT^tful  authenticity.  My 
argument,  however,  does  not  require  that  I  should  avail  myself  of 
this  circumstance.     My  allusion  to  it  was  merely  incidental. 

The  gentleman  betiays  great  want  of  information  in  what  he 
says  about  the  Council  of  Trent,  as  adopting  the  acts  or  reputed 
acts  of  the  Council  of  Lateran.  The  Council  of  Trent  adopts  all 
the  "  tenets  of  faith  alnd  morals"  that  had  been  held  as  such  by 
any,  and  by  all  the  general  councils  that  preceded  it.     To  these 


125 

"  tenets  also,  and  to  these  alone,  refer  tlie  words  "  delivered,  de- 
fined, and  declared^''  in  the  creed  of  Pius  W .  Thus  the  Avhole 
argument  falls  by  knocking  away  the  prop  of  ignorance  by  which 
it  was  supported. 

As  for  Dens's  Theology,  which  I  have  never  seen,  it  is,  I  pre- 
sume, like  nearly  all  other  treatises  on  the  same  subject,  in  which 
the  prejudices  of  the  author  pervade  the  discussion  of  such  ques- 
tions as  do  not  belong  to  the  substance  of  faith.  The  gentle- 
man has  seen,  or  should  have  seen,  that  the  Catholic  Archbishop 
of  Dublin,  in  the  name  of  the  Irish  Prelates,  had  disavowed  it. 
That  it  was  published  as  a  speculation  by  an  ordinary  bookseller, 
that  it  was  not  the  standard  or  school  book  of  theology  in  Ireland, 
that  it  was  only  referred  to  as  a  rule  for  the  order  or  succession, 
in  which  the  conferences  of  the  clergy  'svere  to  take  up  questions 
to  be  investigated.  But  the  ebullitions  of  religious  spleen,  and 
the  researches  of  reckless  apostacy,  furnished  by  Mflrtogh  O'Sul- 
livan,  Mr.  M'Ghee,  dee,  dee,  and  the  rest  of  the  "Fudge  Family*' 
at  Exeter  Hall,  have  come  to  the  gentleman's  aid,  too  late  indeed 
for  the  discussion,  but  yet  in  time  for  the  correction  of  his 
speeches.  In  quoting  the  real  or  pretended  sentiments  of  Dens, 
my  opponent  deals  in  false  premises,  and  absurd  conclusions — by 
assuming,  that  the  work  called  Dens's  Theology,  contains  nothing 
but  Catholic  doctrine,  which  is  false;  and  by  concluding  from  this 
false  position,  that  therefore  Catholics  are  bound  to  believe  all 
that  Dens  has  written ;  which  is  absurd,  and  consequently  no 
argument. 

As  to  the  Rhemish  Testament,  I  have  no  objection  that  he  has 
referred  to  it.  The  notes  put  to  it  by  the  publisher  are  objection- 
able, and  were  condemned  by  the  Catholics  of  England  from  its 
first  appearance — a  sufficient  evidence  that  these  notes  are  any- 
thing but  Catholic  doctrine.  The  work  was  almost  out  of  print 
when  the  clique  to  which  the  gentleman  belongs,  brought  out  an 
edition  in  New  York,  in  order  to  make  the  Catholics  of  this 
country  answer  for  the  sins  of  the  Rhemish  note-makers.  But 
iniquity  lied  to  itself.  For,  in  publishing  the  notes,  they  publish 
also  the  text;  thereby  refuting  their  own  calumny  about  the  Scrip- 
tures being  forbidden. 

Bossuet  says,  "  there  is  no  illusion  more  dangerous  than  to 
assign  suffering  as  a  mark  of  a  true  church."  -  His  words  are 
these — "II  n'y  a  point  d'illusion  plus  dangereuse,  que  de  donner 
*  LA  souffrance'  pour  un  charactere  de  vraie  eglise."  As  the 
gentleman  does  not  know  the  French  language,  I  can  pardon  him 
for  supposing  that  "  la  souffrance"  means  "  toleration."  But 
Faber,  no  doubt,  has  "  quoted  it  just  as  he  has  done." 

The  Belgian  bishops  quoted  the  ancient  constitution  of  the 
country  for  their  pretensions,  and  certainly  neither  English, 
French,  Irish,  Scotch  or  American  Catholics,  have  anything  to 
do  with  the  Belgic  Constitution,  ancient  or  modern. 


l26 

The  case  of  tlie  Pope's  letter  to  the  cardinals,  dated  February 
5,  1808,  deserves  a  little  explanation,  which,  for  the  gentleman's 
instruction  in  history,  I  will  supply.  The  Pope  was  a  prisoner 
in  Rome,  and  Napoleon  had  proposed  to  alter  the  civil  constitii- 
iion  of  the  Papal  ^tates,  by  which  the  Catholic  religion  had 
been  exclusively  recognized,  from  time  immemorial.  The  Pope 
protested  against  this  change,  as  being  contrary  to  the  "  canons," 
"councils,"  and  the  "  Catholic  religion" — just  as  the  Bishop  of 
London  would  say,  that  it  was  against  the  "  canons,"  "  acts  of 
parliament,"  and  "  the  Church  of  England,"  as  by  laio  established, 
to  admit  the  dissenters  to  take  degrees  in  the  Universities. 

In  a  word,  the  gentleman  may  heap  together  scraps  of  books, 
five  words  from  one  place,  and  fifteen  from  another; — he  may  in- 
voke the  spouters  at  Exeter  Hall,  the  apostate  De  Pradt,  and  one 
thousand  other  helps ; — he  may  show  what  was  done,  but  still  he 
comes  short  of  proving  his  proposition — which  is,  that  the  doc- 
trines, that  is,  those  "  tenets  of  faith  and  morals  which  Catholics 
hold  as  having  been  revealed  by  Almighty  God,"  are  opposed  to 
*'  civil  and  religious  liberty."  He  knows  well,  that  the  Catholic 
Church  cuts  off  from  her  communion  those  who  reject  he-  doc- 
trines. Thus  it  is  a  doctrine,  that  marriage  lawfully  and  validly 
contracted,  is  indissoluble ;  and  for  the  maintenance  of  this  doc- 
trine, she  sufTered  Henry  VHI.  and  his  adherents  to  depart  from 
the  Church.  In  this  respect  she  is  perhaps  inimical  to  liberty, 
as  she  would  not  allow  his  majesty  the  liberty  of  having  two 
wives  at  the  same  time.  But  Catholic  France  and  Catholic 
Poland  made  all  religions  equal,  and  there  was  no  excommunica- 
tion ;  because,  in  the  exercise  of  civil  sovereignty,  they  had  the 
right  to  do  so,  and  because,  in  doing  so,  they  violated  no  doctrine 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  The  gentleman,  however,  thinks  that 
Poland  did  nothing,  so  long  as  she  did  not  "expel;"  in  other 
words,  persecute  "  the  Jesuits."  This  shows  his  standard  of  re- 
ligious liberty.  His  knowledge  of  the  history  of  Poland  seems 
to  be  as  extensive  as  the  article  on  that  subject  in  the  Encyclo- 
paedia Americana. 

Let  the  gentleman  now  come  on  to  "  Huss,"  "  the  Council  of 
Constance,"  "the  Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,"  "the  Inquisi- 
tion," and  the  other  stereotype  topics  of  reproach;  and  whilst  I 
pledge  myself  to  prove  that  the  religion  of  Roman  Catholics  has 
no  necessary  connexion  with  them,  I  pledge  myself  also  to  show 
that  the  gentleman,  like  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  Protestants 
out  of  every  thousand,  is  ignorant,  or  what  is  vjoxse^viisinformed 
on  these  subjects.  1  pledge  myself  to  show  that  Presbyterianism 
has  been  more  cruel  in  its  laws  than  the  inquisition  itself.  In  the 
meantime,  we  are  on  the  subject  of  the  decrees,  real  or  fictitious, 
as  he  may  choose  to  consider  them,  of  the  Council  of  Lateran 
against  the  Albigenses.  I  have  proved  that  they  were  confined  to 
the  Albigenses  alone.     2.   That  it  .depended  on  the  civil  authority 


127 

ofthe  state,  at  whose  instance  they  were  probably  enacted,  to  put 
them  in  force  or  not.  3.  That  they  never  weie  put  in  force  ex- 
cept in  one  or  two  provinces  of  France.  4,  That  they  were 
neither  enacted  nor  enforced  for  two  hundred  years  after  the  first 
appearance  of  the  Albigenses.  5.  That  it  was  not  for  their  specu- 
lative errors,  but  for  their  crimes  against  human  nature — the 
"  consequence  of  their  pernicious  system,"  as  Mosheim  expresses 
it,  and  not  for  these  only,  but  for  their  ravages  on  the  rights  of 
society,  in  the  destruction  of  life  and  property.  6.  That  the  law 
for  their  suppression  did  not  even  pretend  to  rest  for  its  authority 
on  any  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  but  upon  the  reward  of 
confiscated  lands  and  promised  indulgences.  And  finally,  that 
not  only  the  political  condition  of  society,  which  theyi  existed, 
must  be  restored,  but  the  Protestants  must  agree  in  "  doctrine  and 
practice"  with  the  Albigenses,  before  the  gentleman,  with  all  his 
anxiety  to  do  so,  can  bring  himself  and  his  brethren  within  the 
meaning  of  the  obsolete  politico-ecclesiastic  enactments  of  the 
Council  of  Lateran.  He  may  say  that  the  council,  as  such,  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  enactment  of  civil  ^penalties.  This  is 
another  question,  on  which  I  shall  not  enter  further  than  by 
stating,  in  opposition  to  what  the  gentleman  has  undertaken  to 
prove,  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church  gave  them  no 
authority  to  do  so.  He  may  say  that  the  Albigenses  have  been 
calumniated,  and  get  some  Bancroft  to  give  them  a  character,  as 
he  did  the  Calvinists.  This  will  not  do.  I  have  stated  the  facts 
and  cotemporary  authorities.  Let  the  gentleman  meet  my  posi- 
tion as  a  scholar  and  as  a  logician,  by  going  to  the  original  autho- 
rities. He  mistakes  the  character  of  the  public  judgment,  if  he 
supposes  that  his  declamation  will  pass  for  history,  or  his  rhapso- 
dies for  reason. 

The  gentleman  in  quoting  the  index  of  what  he  calls  the  Acta 
Ecclesiae,  shows  great  fecundity  of  resources,  if  not  depth  of  re- 
search. For,  if  he  can  make  arguments  from  having  perused 
merely  the  index,  what  would  be  able  to  resist  him  if  he  had 
made  himself  acquainted  with  the  body  of  the  work?  He  seems 
to  think  that  every  thing  written  by  a  Catholic  is  an  article  of 
faith;  and  that  every  action  that  was  done  by  a  Catholic,  the 
more  wicked  the  better  for  his  purpose,  was  a  defined  tenet  of 
Catholic  morality.  He  is  mistaken.  The  time  allotted  me,  is  too 
brief  for  me  to  refute  his  arguments,  and  point  out  to  him  the 
difference  between  canon  law  and  Catholic  doctrine. 

But  let  him  read  some  treatise,  even  Hooker's  Ecclesiastical 
Polity,  and  he  will  find  that  there  is  a  difiference.  Or  to  make  the 
illustration  more  familiar,  I  would  say,  that  "  Acta  Ecclesiae,"  or 
the  "  Canon  Law"  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  are  the  sayings 
and  doings  of  the  General  Assembly ;  but  the  doctrines  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  are  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  as 
"revised,"  ''  corrected,"  and  "  amended,"  to  suit  the  political  con- 


128 

dition  of  the  country  for  the  time  being.  But  wlien  I  come  to 
treat  the  Presbyterian  question,  I  am  prepared  to  show  tliat  what 
is  at  most  only  canon  law  with  us,  is  doctrine  with  them.  For 
instance,  in  the  index  of  the  Acta  Ecclesiae,  as  quoted  by  him,  it 
is  forbidden  io  pray  or  marry  with  heretics;  a  proof  that,  at  least, 
it  was  not  forbidden  to  let  heretics  live,  as  the  genllemah  has  been 
labouring  to  persuade  us.  Now,  in  contrast  with  this,  let  us  place 
the  mild,  liberal,  charitable  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church — 
*'  Such  as  profess  the  true  reformed  religion,  should  not  marry 
with  infidels,  papists,  or  other  idolators:  neither  should  the  godly 
be  unequally  yoked."(l) 

I  had  stated  that  Catholics  exercise  their  own  discretion  on. the 
subject  of  civil  and  religious  liberty — that  their  religion  leaves  them 
free  on  the  matter.  I  know  that  St.  Paul  was  not  a  preacher  of 
insurrection  to  the  slave.  Tn  reply  to  this,  the  gentleman  exclaims, 
"What?  does  not  the  Bible  define  the  rights  of  conscience,  and 
of  personal  as  well  as  civil  liberty  ?  If  we  look  at  the  black  ruins 
of  the  convent  near  Boston,  we  should  infer  not;  for  the  Boston 
people,  and,  indeed,  the  New  England  people  generally,  are  great 
Bible  readers.  ^'Presbyterians,''^  he  says,  '■'■hold  that  God  has 
revealed  a  clear  code  of  rights  in  his  word,''''  and  that  there  is  "no 
discretion  as  to  the  matter  of  liberty.^''  Now  the  magnanimous 
sacking  of  the  convent  was  in  strict  accordance  with  this  acknow- 
ledged "doctrine"  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  midnight 
torch  was  applied,  and,  sure  enough,  there  was  "no  discretion" — 
there  was  no  alternative,  but  to  perish  in  the  flames,  or  go  to  enjoy 
"liberty,"  with  the  houseless  beasts  of  the  field.  The  conse- 
quences of  this  Presbyterian  doctrine,  which  I  repeat,  is  not  the 
doctrine  of  St.  Paul,  begin  to  be  felt  in  the  south  as  well  as  in  the 
north,  making  the  master  a  criminal  against  God,  for  holding 
slaves,  and  the  slaves  criminals  against  God,  for  submitting  to  their 
condition.  The  Presbyterians  hold,  that  according  to  the  word  of 
God,  "there  is  no  discretion  on  the  matter  of  liberty." 

(1)  Confession,  p.  108. 


129 


"  Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion,  in  any  or  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  ojjposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  J?" 


AFFIRMATIVE  IV.—MR.  BRECKINRIDGE. 

Mr.  President, — 

I  HOPE  the  gentleman  has  recovered  his  composure  after  the 
discussions  of  the. last  jiight.  If  the  Joints  of  his  armour  crack 
under  the  power  of  the  truth,  it  is  not  my  fault;  nor  his:  for  he  is 
the  ''prince  of  dodgers.'^  If  his  cause  could  be  defended,  he 
could  do  it.  It  fails — not  for  want  of  an  able  advocate — but  from 
its  own  evil  nature.  How  affecting  a  spectacle  it  is,  to  see  a  mind 
possessed  of  powers  fitted  to  bless  his  country  and  his  age,  stoop- 
ing to  every  unworthy  art,  to  defend  a  system  on  which  God  and 
man  have  written  "^eA-e/,"  as  Avith  a  sunbeam,  and  whose  final 
and  speedy  overthrow  is  as  certain  as  its  dominion  has  been  de- 
structive of  the  best  hopes  of  the  race  ! 

The  gentleman  denies  that  this  Society  has  "  exposed''^  the  men- 
dacious writer  in  "  The  Catholic  Diary."  Yet  the  society  (he 
OAvns)  has  said  that  some  of  the  writer's  remarks  were  "  in  a  great 
measure  untrue.''''  This  looks  no  little  like  saying  that  the  author 
had  told  ''falsehoods ^^'  though  I  know  the  Jesuits  draw  a  distinc- 
tion between  lying  in  whole,  and  lying  in  "a  great  measure  f 
and  I  am  willing  that  the  gentleman  should  profit  by  his  casuistry. 
Yet  why  did  the  editor  of  the  Diary  refuse  to  publish  the  society's 
letter?  And  why  did  he  not  call  for  the  proofs,  if  he  desired  jus- 
tice, or  doubted  the  statements  made  in  the  letter  ? 

It  is  really  enough  to  excite  the  compassion  of  the  audien<=e,  to 
see  how  the  genUeman  retreats  from  the  charge  which  lie  made 
against  me,  of  "forging  a  quotation"  from- the  Council  of  Trent. 
He  said,  in  so  many  words,  "  And  what  will  be  ilu  reader's  dis- 
gust, to  learn  that" this  beautiful  specimen  of  Latiniiy,  j^ut  forth 
as  a  quotation  from  the  Council  of  Trent,  is  a  fabrication,  a 
FORGERY."  In  my  reply,  I  produced  conviction,  even  on  his  mind, 
that  this  Latin,  at  which  he  had  laughed,  pnd  in  regard  to  which 
he  had  so  impertinently  charged  me,  is  i/ideed  the  very  Latin,  ver- 
bum  verbo,  word,  for  word,  of  th«  holy  council !  Yet  he  called  it 
"fabrication."  You  may  se^  how  much  credit  is  due  to  his 
charges,  by  this  example,  ^or  he  is  compelled  to  own,  "  that  his 
personal  integrity  is  interested  in  this  point,"  and  with  disingenu- 
ous, but  forced  acl^'rtowledgment,  says,  "according  to  the  letter,  I 
was  mistaken  r'  and  according  to  the  letter,  I  retract.'^     But  how 

17 


130 

could  he  be  *"  mistaken,"  with  the  Latin  before  him,  and  in  the 
very  same  chapter,  a  few  sentences  below !  And  if  mistaken  in 
his  own  decrees,  what  shall  we  say  of  his  knowledge  of  his  cause  ? 
If  not ^  what  shall  we  think  of  such  outrageous  charges  against  the 
true  citation  of  the  document? 

Having  failed  "  in  the  letter ^''^  he  flies  for  refuge  to  the  "  doctrine,^^ 
which  I  am  still  charged  with  "  perverting."  In  my  first  speech,  I 
translated  "  injungcre  pcenas,"  to  "  inflict  punishments."  In  his  re- 
ply, he  charged  me,  as  usual,  wiih  fcdsifying  the  ssnse  by  this  trans- 
lation.    To  make  it  plain  that  this  was  the  true  sense,  I  referred, 
in  my  second  speech,  to  a  passage  in  the  same  connexion,  just 
below,  where  the  words  imponere  pknam,  occur,  and  I  quoted  that 
member  of  the  sentence  which  contained  them.     Then  he  denied 
that  there  was  such  a  passage  ;  but,  corrected  by  my  last  speech, 
owns  it  was  there;  makes  a  ludicrous  apology  for  ridiculing  the 
Latin  of  the  holy  infallible  council,  and  flies  at  me  for  3i  mistrans- 
lation.    Now  poena  means  punishment,  as  my  same  little  school- 
boy will  say;  *^  injungere^''  means  "^o  join  with,''^  "to  lay  on," 
*'  to  enjoin  ;"  and  '■''imponere'^  "  to  impose,"  "  to  enjoin,"  "  to  in- 
flict,''''  "/o  lay  upon  one.^^    Fcenitentia  signifies  ^^ penance  ;^^  but 
poena,  ^^ punishment.''''     But  the  gentleman  says,  "/o  inflict  pun- 
ishment, might  mean  personal  castigation.^^     So  it  might!  and 
so  it  often  does  !     Has  this  not  been  the  fact  in  every  age  of  the 
*' Catholic  Church,"  that  she  has  enjoined  and  claimed  the  right 
to  order,   and  even  to  inflict  *'  personal  castigation,"  by   way  of 
penance.     Devoti,  Vol.  HI.,  Book  IV.,  §  21,  tells  us,  ^^  that  the 
church  had  prisons  in  former  days,  in  which  offending  clergy- 
men were  cast,''  and  he  enumerates  "castigation,  exile,  finesy 
and  other  punishments  inflicted  by  the  churchy"  or,  as  the  gen- 
tleman's Latinity  is  so  pure,  I  will  give  him   the  7iut  to  crack. 
*'De  verberibus,  exilio,  mulctis  pecuniariis,  caeteris  que  pcenis, 
quae  ab  ecclesia  dabantur,  sequenti  libro,  suus  erit  agendi  locus." 
Affain,  Book  IV.,  §§  9,  10,  he  discourses  at  large  on  the  same 
subject,  and  tells  us,  among  other  things,  that  there  are  prisons  in 
monasteries,  for  this  very  use.     In  the  ninth  section  he  honestly 
avows  that  the  church  has  power  to  coerce  the  laity  as  well  as 
the  clergy^  with  temporal  punishments.    And  this  author  has  the 
sanction  of  the  Pope  as  late  as  A.  D.  \1Q2— saying  that  there  is 
nothing  in  th^  book  contrary  to  faith  and  good  morals.     (But 
more  of  this  hereafter.)     Is  *any  man  a  stranger  to  the  fact,  that 
all  sorts  of  personal  <;haetisements  have  been  enjoined,  some  self- 
inflicted,   as   penance,  und   some   inflicted   by   authority   of  the 
"  holy  mother,"  as  tender  mei^ies,  to  reduce  the  sinner  to  repent- 
ance? 

In  vain  therefore  does  the  genOeman  struggle  in  his  toils.  His 
had  Latin  is  with  him  and  his  fathers  ot  Trent.  His  criticisms, 
be  on  his  guides;  his  "forgeries"  on  his,  own  head!  As  to 
Bossuet — and  French — I  own  "  /  do  not  knox,)  as  much  about 


131 

the  French"  as  I  do  of  "  the  Jesuits.''''  But  with  my  little,  I 
proceed  to  expose  his  ivretched  perversion  of  Bossuet.  The 
gentleman  makes  lum  say  ^^  there  is  no  illusion  more  dangerous 
than  to  assign  suffering  as  a  mark  of  the  true  church.''^  V  La 
souffrance^'  may  mean  either  "  suffering'''  or  "  toleration,'^  The 
author  is  speaking  of  the  exercise  of  the  pouter  of  the  sword  in 
matters  of  religion  and  conscience ;  and  he  says  that  '*  it  cannot 
BE  CALLED  IN  QUESTION  WITHOUT  Weakening,  and,  as  it  were, 
m-aiming,  the  public  authority  or  power :"(l)  (then  follows  the 
passage  before  cited)  so  that  there  is  no  illusion  more  dangerous 
than  to  make  toleration  a  mark  of  the  true  church.'^  It  would 
be  pure  nonsense  to  translate  this  word  ^^  suffering ;^''  for  he  is 
defending  the  power  to  enforce  religion;  and  is  opposing  *^ la 
souffrance'^  or  "  toleration."  Now,  if  it  be  rendered  "  suffering," 
then  you  make  him  say  that  the  power  of  the  sword  in  matters  of 
religion  is  right,  therefore  "  suffering"  is  not  a  mark  of  the  true 
church!  But  the  same  author  elsewhere  settles  the  question. 
"  It  is  this,"  the'holy  and  inflexible  incompatibility  of  the  Catholic 
Chutch,  *'  indeed  which  renders  her  so  unconciliatory,  and  con- 
sequently so  odious  to  all  sects  separated  from  her;  most  of 
which  at  the  beginning  desired  only  to  be  tolerated  by  her,  or 
at  least  not  to  be  anathematized  by  her.  But  her  holy  security, 
and  the  holy  delicacy  of  her  sentiments,  forbade  her  such 
indulgence,  or  rather  such  softness. "(2)  Will  the  gentleman 
then  reapply  his  knowledge  of  the  language  "  of  the  great  nation," 
and  tell  us  whether  Bossuet  really  believed  it  right  to  tolerate  a 
false  religion/  So  far  is  he  from  this,  that  he  admits  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  the  most  intolerant  of  all  Christian  sects, 
while  quoting  and  affirming  (on  the  previous  page)  the  words  of 
M.  Jurieu. 

The  allusion  of  the  gentleman  to  "  marriage"  is  peculiarly 
unfortunate.  For,  on  that  subject  alone,  it  were  easy  to  show  that 
the  doctrines  of  his  church  are  directly  at  tvar  with  the  civil 
law  of  the  land,  as  well  as  convey  the  inost  horrible  intimations 
on  the  legitimacy  of  all  Protestant  issue. 

**  The  Belgian  bishops"  are  not  to  be  put  aside  with  a  icord. 
They  quoted  *'  the  canonical  laws"  as  opposed  to  the  neiv  consti- 
tution, and  for  the  reason  that  the  new  constitution  tolerated  all 
religions,  which  the  canon  laws  forbade.  They  say  "  toleration 
is   incompatible  with  the  free  exercise  of  their  olhcial  duties." 

(1)  Chose  ausi  qui  ne  peut  etre  revoquee  en  doute,  sans  ^nerver  et  comme, 
estropier  la  puissance  publique. 

(2)  Cost  en  effect  ce  qui  la  rend  si  severe  si  insociable,  et  ensuite  si  odieuse 
a  toutes  les  sectes  separees,  qui  la  plupart  au  commencement  ne  demondoient 
autre  chose  si  non  qu'elle  voulQt  bien  les  tolerer  ou  du  moins  ne  le  frapper 
par  de  ses  anathemez.  Mais  sa  sainte  severite  et  la  sainte  delicatesse  des  ses 
sentimens  ne  lui  permettoit  pas  cettc  indulgence,  ou  plutot  cette  mollesse. — 
Sixieme  Avevtisment,  sect.  11.5;  CEuvres,  toin.  iv.  p.  426. 


132 

They  declare  that  their  duty  to  the  church  will  put  them  *'i« 
foTTYiul  opposition  to  the  laws  of  the  state^''''  viz.  to  "  universal 
toleration.^^  Now,  if  the  bishops  of  a  whole  nation  are  right;  if 
they  understand  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  canonical  law,  and  their 
duties  to  the  Catholic  religion,  toleration  of  any  other  religion  is 
against  all  these!  Hence  they  call  on  the  king  to  establish  the 
Catholic  religion  again,  by  law,  as  before,  or  else  threaten  to 
oppose  the  "  laws  of  the  state."  So  would  the  bishops  and 
priests  do  here  if  they  had  equal  candor!  Therefore,  "  English 
French,  Irish,  Scotch  and  American  Catholics  have  much  to  do 
with''''  this  matter;  and  so  have  American  Protestants ;  and  they 
will  understand  it  so  ! 

We  notice  next  the  gentleman's  confused  and  awkwaid  account 
of  the  Albigeases.  I  see  he  would  willingly  detain  me  from  the 
exposure  of  popery,  on  the  question  of  their  heresies  and  immo- 
ralities. But  this  cannot  be;  though  he  is  peculiarly  open  to  ex- 
posure in  their  history.  Now,  allowing  all  he  says  of  their  cha- 
racter and  doctrines  to  be  true,  what  does  it  amount  to?  To 
this : — that  they  ivere  so  wicked,  so  heretical,  and  such  enemies  to 
the  human  race,  that  the  Pope  and  Council  were  compelled,  after 
two  hundred  years  of  jj«/ie;ice,  to  order  their  extermination! 
We  know  that  laymen  never  vote  in  popish  councils.  That  is  a 
Presbyterian  heresy,  to  admit  tlie  representatives  of  the  people 
to  vote  on  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  church.  Of  course 
it  was  by  the  clergy  that  this  persecuting  canon  was  passed. 
Therefore,  the  clergy,  headed  by  the  Pope,  resolved  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  church  to  take  up  arms  against  such  offenders.  ' 
This  is  confessing  the  whole  point  in  debate.  For,  we  repeat  it, 
the  civil  power  cdoyie  had  a  right  to  declare  war  against  their  civil 
transgressors.  But  the  holy  council  did  it.  But  the  gendeman 
says,  "  the  Fourth  General  Council  of  Lateran  was  assembled 
especially  for  the  purpose  of  condemning  the  errors  of  the  Albi- 
gensian  heresy.  In  this  capacity  it  was  infallible."  They  did 
condemn  the  errors.  But  what  next?  They  then  proceeded  to 
order  the  punishment  of  these  heretics.  Let  it  be  remembered, 
the  gentleman  admits  that  they  had  been  in  existence  for  two 
centuries — and  out  of  Rome's  communion.  Yet  the  holy  coun- 
cil were  determined,  as  they  were  like  *'  deserters  from  an  army^ 
they  were  still  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  church,  and,  as 
such,  were  liable  to  have  judgment  passed  on  them,  and  to  be 
punished  ahd  denounced  with  anathema.''' {[)  Accordingly,  the 
gentleman  admits  they  had  the  right  to  inflict  punishment,  but 
denies  that  in  doing  it  they  were  infallible,  or  derived  the  right 
froni  their  priestly  office.  *'  Whatever  right  they  may  have 
derived  from  other  sources  or  circumstances  to  inflict  civil  punish- 
ment, it  is  certain  they  have  derived  none  from  their  vocation  to 

(1)  See  Cat.  Counc.  Trent,  p.  95. 


133 

the  holy  ministry  or  the  imposition  of  hands."  "When  they 
pass  from  the  definitions  of  doctrine  to  the  enactments  of  civil  or 
bodily  penalties,  iheiv  decisions  are  sustained  hy  no  promise  of 
infallibility y  How  strange  a  picture  !  An  intermittent  infalli- 
bility !  The  same  identical  men,  passing  three  decrees — the  first 
and  second  on  doctrine — the  third  ordering  the  punishment  of 
those  who  held  these  doctrines,  and  who  were  enemies  to  society, 
&LC.  In  the  two  former,  they  were  infallible:  in  the  latter,  not. 
They  had  right  from  God  to  do  the  two  former,  i.  e.  to  denounce 
the  errors  and  sins:  in  the  latter,  they  had  a  right  from  *'  other 
sources  and  circumstances"  to  order  their  extermination !  In  a 
word,  these  holy  butchers  marked  the  victims,  and  then  set  their 
bloodhounds  on  them.  When  arraigned  for  it,  they  say,  we 
condemned  doctrines,  as  infallible  priests ^  we  ordered  the  exter- 
mination of  the  heretics,  as  men.  Truly  this  is  a  terrific  sort  of 
defence !  But  this  is  the  best  that  even  Mr.  Hughes  himself  can 
say.  Now,  to  show  the  fraud  as  well  as  folly  of  such  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  definition  and  discipline  of  the  council,  let  me 
ask,  is  this  bloody  discipline  contrary  to  any  doctrine,  or  to  any 
bull  ever  uttered  by  the  Church  of  Borne?  Of  all  the  general 
councils  that  have  met  since  A.  D.  1215,  (of  which  the  gentleman 
admits  no  less  than  six)  and  of  all  the  bulls  of  all  the  Popes  for 
so  many  hundred  years,  not  one  has  in  one  line,  or  word, 
denounced,  or  in  any  way  recalled  or  altered,  this  bloody  canon ! 
I  call  on  the  gentleman  to  produce  one  sentence  which  in  the 
least  goes  to  condemn  it!  If  he  cannot  produce  it,  will  it  not 
follow  that  there  is  nothing  in  persecution  against  the  doctrines 
of  his  church?  The  same  remarks  apply  with  augmented  force 
to  the  twenty-seventh  canon  of  the  Third  Lateran,  against  which  he 
has  no  exception  to  make ;  only  that  I  left  out  (in  a  former  Contro- 
versy) the  middle  of  the  canon,  and  gave  the  first  and  last.  But  I 
gave  full  ^xooi  o^  lis  persecuting  character.  I  gave  a  full  page  of 
it;  and  gave  all  but  the  nariative  of  their  pretended  crimes.  I  did 
not  know  before  that  Mr.  Hughes  conceded  that  the  council  had 
jurisdiction  over  them;  and,  as  the  celebrated  Faber  set  the  exam- 
ple, I  suppose  that  I  shall  be  considered  as  at  least  in  as  good 
company,  and  under  as  hopeful  direction,  as  if  following  a  wily 
Jesuit.  But  now  for  the. whole  canon,  crimes  and  all!  Does  he 
admit  that  to  be  genuine?  He  has  already  done  so !  It  dooms 
its  victims  to  slavery!  It  even  hires  men  to  slaughter  the  heretics 
for  their  errors  and  crimes,  with  heavenly  gifts  !  and  denounces  all 
who  refuse  to  take  up  arms  against  them!  Has  this  canon  of  the 
third  Lateran  ever  been  repealed,  or  its  persecution  and  bloodshed 
denounced,  by  pope  or  council?  Yet  it  was  passed  as  early  as 
A.  D.  1179 — six  hundred  and  fifty-six  years  ago! 

But  again;  the  gentleman,  desperate  in  resource,  and  trusting 
to  the  chance  of  ^y  not  having  the  canons  of  the  Fourth  Lateran 
before  me,  says  that  the  council  was  "  assembled  especially  for 


134  ' 

the  purpose  of  condemning  the  errors  of  the  AJbigensian  heresy." 
Now  Dupin  tells  us  (on  the  13th  Cent.,  page  95,)  '*  the  Pope,  in 
his  Letters  of  Indiction,  gives  his  reasons  why  he  thought  the 
council  necessary,  viz.  '  the  recovery  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  the 
reformation  of  the  Catholic  Church.'  "  It  passed  no  less  than 
seventy  canons — one  of  these,  the  bloody  third,  of  which  we  are 
treating.  They  were  on  the  Greek  Church,  on  the  drunken- 
ness and  bastards  of  the  clergy — forbidding  states  to  tax  the 
clergy — regulating  relics,  excommunications,  revenues,  <fcc.,  and 
they  end  with  a  decree  on  the  crusade  for  the  recovery  of 
the  Holy  Land,  for  which  the  remission  of  sins  was  promised; 
excommunication  is  threatened  to  those  who  vowed  to  go,  and 
then  failed;  the  holy  army  is  ordered  when  to  start,  and  where 
to  convene,  and  such  like  things,  well  becoming  *'  Chrisfs 
vicar^^  and  Mr.  Hughes's  infallible  head!  Yet  he  says  the 
Albigenses  were  the  chief  object;  nay,  "the  exclusive"  one! 
Again ;  he  says,  that  the  heretics  denoted  in  the  third  canon,  and 
the  heretics  denounced  in  the^rs^  and  second,  were  Albigensian, 
and  restricted  to  them.  Strange !  In  the  creed  expressed  in  the 
first  canon,  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  is  specially  named, 
and  the  impossibility  of  salvation  out  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
Now,  I  ask,  were  the  Albigenses  the  only  sect  who  opposed 
these,  even  in  that  age  1  But  he  owns  that  the  penal  canon  was 
against  all  those  who  did  not  or  should  not  hold  what  is  defined 
in  the  first  canon.  But  do  not  all  modern,  as  well  as  ancient 
Protestants,  reject  and  abhor  the  said  defined  doctrines  of  Iran- 
substantiation,  and  no  salvation  out  of  the  Catholic  Church? 
Then  the  canon  applies  to  them,  and  to  all  of  them,  as  well  as  to 
the  Albigenses.  Besides,  in  the  second  canon,  the  council  con- 
demns the  errors  of  Joachim,  Abbot  of  Flora,  and  the  errors  of 
Amaury.  After  this  broad  and  various  definition,  covering  every 
Protestant,  then  or  now  on  earth,  the  council  proceed  to  say, 
(in  the  third  canon)  "  we  excommunicate  and  anathematize  every 
heresy  extolling  itself  against  this  holy  orthodox  faith,  which 
we  have  before  (as  above)  expounded."  And  yet  the  gentleman 
tells  us  it  only  means  these  wicked  Albigenses  ! 

His  motive  in  this  is  plain;  but  his  weakness  is  plainer  still. 
He  cannot  restrict  the  curses  of  that  bloody  act,  and  the  crimes 
and  murders  which  flowed  after  it,  to  the  poor  Albigenses.  It 
has  no  limits  less  than  all  ages  of  the  world,  and  all  Protestants 
against  Rome  ;  or  if  there  be  a  limit,  it  is  in  the  power  of  Rome 
to  carry  it  out.  But  once  more :  he  says,  if  persecution  were  a 
doctrine  of  their  Church,  why  did  they  bear  with  the  Albigenses 
80  long?  Answer.  They  did  not  bear  with  them.  In  1179,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  Third  Late  ran  enacted  its  bloody  twenty-seventh 
canon  against  heretics.  The  Council  of  Tours  in  1163,  that  of 
Toulouse  in  1119,  Slc.  passed  persecuting  canons.  As  soon  as 
ihey   dared,  the   popes   and   councils   began    their  persecution. 


135 

Dupin  says,  (Thirteenth  Century,  p.  154.)  "  The  Popes  and 
prelates  [perceiving  that  tlie  notorious  •  heretics  contemned  the 
spiritual  power,  and  that  excommunication  and  other  ecclesiastical 
penalties  were  so  far  from  reducing  them,  that  they  rendered  them 
more  insolent,  and  put  them  upon  using  violence,]  were  of  opinion 
that  it  was  lawful  to  make  use  of  force,  to  see  whether  those  who 
were  not  reclaimed  out  of  a  sense  of  their  salvation,  might  be  so 
by  the  fear  of  punishments,  and  even  of  temporal  death*  There 
had  been  already  several  instances  of  heretics  condemned  to 
fines,  to  banishments,  to  punishments,  and  even  to  death  itself; 
but  there  had  never  been  any  war  proclaimed  against  them.  In- 
nocent III.  was  the  first  that  proclaimed  such  a  war  against 
THE  Albigenses,  [a  fine  business  for  the  head  of  the  Church !] 
and  Waldenses,  [Mr.  Hughes  says,  it  was  '  restricted  to  the 
Albigenses,'  and  that  the  Waldenses  were  a  very  different  peo- 
ple,] and  against  Raymond,  Count  of  Toulouse,  their  protector. 
War  might  subdue  the  heads,  and  reduce  whole  bodies  of  people, 
but  it  was  not  capable  of  altering  the  sentiments  of  particular  per- 
S(ms,  or  of  hindering  them  from  teaching  their  doctrines  secretly. 
Whereupon,  the  Pope  thought  it  advisable  to  set  up  a  tribunal  of 
such  persons  whose  business  should  be  to  make  inquiry  after 

heretics,  and  to  draw  up  their  processes And  from 

hence  this  tribunal  was  called  the  Inquisition."  My  hearers 
know  what  it  is.  Dupin  was  a  Papist.  We  see  then  the  gentle- 
man is  confuted,  and  exposed  by  his  ovfw  historian.  And  when 
the  gentleman  asks,  "  If  their  extermination  had  been  a  doctrine 
— /  ask  whether  the  Albigensian  heresy  would  not  have  been 
extinguished  in  the  blood  of  its  first  professors?^"*  I  answer,  it 
was  finally  almost  literally  thus  extinguished,  in  the  blood  of  an 
immense  multitude,  until  at  length  they  were  nearly  blotted  out 
from  under  Heaven;  though,  as  the  gentleman  says,  they  were  at 
one  time  exceedingly  numerous. 

But  lastly:  the  gentleman  \\2iS  falsified  the  history  of  this  peo- 
ple, both  as  to  their  doctrine  and  lives.  1  cited  Mosheim,  because 
he  first  quoted  him,  and  by  omitting  the  name  of  one  sect,  which 
Mosheim  denounced,  and  inserting  falsely  the  name  of  Albigen- 
ses, whom  Mosheim  defends,  made  him  seem  to  sustain  Mr. 
Hughes's  slanders,  in  utter  variance  with  the  author's  whole  his- 
tory. 

Mr.  Hughes  utters  almost  as  many  falsehoods  as  sentences, 
when  he  charges  the  Albigenses  with  heiwg  Manichees ;  and  I 
pledge  myself  to  prove  on  him  an  ignorance  which  has  disgraced 
the  Bishop  of  Meaux,  (and  which  disgraces  his  follower  now,)  be- 
fore I  have  done  with  this  discussion.  But  allowing  all  he  has 
said  of  their  errors  imd  their  vices,  does  not  this  plea  for  persecu- 
tion, on  that  ground,  (for  it  is  no  less,)  prove  that  Catholics  think 
it  a  favour  to  let  othiers  exist  who  differ  from  them,  and  that  they 
claimed  and  exercised  the  right  to  denote,  as  vicious  heretics,  those 


136 

whose  opinions  and  lives  they  disliked ;  that  when  society  was  in 
their  judgment  disturbed  by  such  persons,  especially  if  they  be- 
came numerous,  the  Church  claimed  and  exercised  the  right  to 
declare  religious  wars  against  them,  to  confiscate  their  property, 
forbid  the  exercise  of  all  civil  rights,  order  their  extermination, 
give  their  lands  to  others,  and  depose  their  rulers,  if  they  refused 
to  submit  to  it;  and,  finally,  to  pay  the  murderers  with  "  indul- 
gences,''^ (of  which  the  Church  is  exclusive  depository,)  by  the 
act  of  the  spiritual  head,-  the  Pope  ! ! ! 

The  defence  which  the  gentleman  makes  of  his  vain  attack  on 
the  authenticity  of  the  canon,  is  both  awkward  and  uncandid.  In 
the  former  speech  he  had  said,  '^  the  best  critics  have  regarded 
this  canon  as  spurious,  and  an  interpolation  in  the  genuine  acts 
of  the  council."  Now,  driven  from  this  ground  by  my  convicting 
testimony,  he  says,  the  canon  "  is  composed  of  five  cliapters  or 
sections;"  "  the  second  section  is  the  portion  of  whose  authenti- 
city there  is  a  doubt  among  critics."  But  in  the  former  speech 
he  had  said,  "this  canon  is  regarded  as  spurious."  This  is  there- 
fore a  CHANGE  i^rom  five  sections  to  only  one  section!  But  he  goes 
on — "  and  it  was  of  this  section,  which  is  more  properly  a  chap- 
ter than  a  '  canon,'  that  I  said  it  is  regarded  by  critics  as  spurious." 
This,  I  regret  to  say,  is  false.'  He  said  expressly,  that  "  the  canon 
was  considered  sj)urious  f'  not  merely  this  one  section.  The 
ivholefive  sections  make  one  canon.  He  said  the  whole  was  spu- 
rious; now  he  denies  it:  and  confounding  section  with  canon,  tries 
to  confuse  the  subject.  He  has  finally,  however,  owned,  that  only 
one  of  five  sections  is  supposed  spurious.  Then  my  remark  re- 
turns— allow  it  so.  It  is  not  the  "beginning,"  nor  the  "end;" 
yet  he  denies  it  is  the  "  middle."  It  may  be  the  '^  blind  side,'^ 
for  aught  I  care.  Bitt  take  it  out,  and  what  remains?  The  first 
section,  as  he  calls  it,  denounces  all  heretics,  ordering  them  lo  be 
delivered  to  the  secular  powers ;  their  goods  to  be  confiscated,  &c.: 
ihe  third  section,, (as  divided  by  Caranza,  though  it  is  all  one 
canon,  and  chiefly  on  one  great  subject,)  ofi'ers  indulgences,  such 
as  were  given  to  crusaders  to  the  Holy  Land,  (which  were 

IMMENSE  BLESSINGS,)  FOR  EXTERMINATING  HERETICS  ;  and  the  fifth 

denounced  canonical  vengeance  against  the  bishops  who  should 
neglect  to  purge  their  territories  of  this  heretical  filth.  And  this 
is  only  what  Caranza's  abridgment  gives — I  have  the  whole  be- 
fore me.  He  has  left  out  nearly  hcdf,  and  some  of  the  worst 
parts  too ;  such  as  that  the  whole  country  was  to  be  j>ut  under 
oath  to  inform  on  heretics;  and  those  refusing  to  swear,  were  to 
be  treated  as  heretics ;  depriving  lawyers,  judges,  clerks,  voters, 
heirs,  Sfc.  of  their  civil  rights.  Now  I  ask,  even  if  the  second 
section  were  spurious,  is  there  not  here  persecution  enough  for 
ever  to  expose  the  spirit  of  the  council,  and  of  the  church?  The 
third  section  expressly  rewards  those  who  exterminate  heretic^ — 
(ad  haereticorum  exterminium).     Yet,  gentlemen,  can  you  believe 


137 

it,  he  denies  "  that  independent  of  this  omitted  section^  we  have 
the  exterminating  claused  He  says,  "  /  deny  the  truth  of  the 
assertion.^\  This  is  to  me  inexplicable.  I  do  from  my  heart 
pity  the  position  of  the  gentleman.  The  gentleman  charges  me 
with  quoting  Labbeus  falsely,  thus,  "  Deest  hie  folium  in  codice 
Graeco." — This  is  a  falsification  of  my  citation.  1  quoted  it 
thus,  *'  Deest  hie  folium  in  codice  Mazarino." — "  A  leaf  is  here 
wanting  in  the  Mazarine  manuscript."  As  the  leaf  was  wanting 
in  the  Mazarine  manuscript,  of  course,  all  it  contained  was  want- 
ing;  and  yet  the  gentleman  would  make  me  say,  though  the  leaf 
was  wanting,  yet  half  the  leaf  was  not  wanting.  1  said  Labbeus 
followed  that  manuscript;  yet  the  fact  that  he  also  gives  the  Latiit 
.of  the  canon,  shows  that  he  believed  it  to  be  genuine,  though  the 
leaf  was  wanting.  The  gentleman  ought  to  have  more  sense,  or 
more  candour,  than  thus  to  quibble.  This  then  is  my  "  answer" 
to  his  most  profound  "question." 

Again:  in  the  last  speech  the  gentleman  said,  "  Collier  (a  Pro- 
testant) pronounces  this  canon  spurious."  I  replied,  it  is  not 
true  ;  he  only  says,  it  is  wanting  (as  above)  in  the  Mazarine  manu- 
script. Does  the  gentleman,  in  answer  to  this,  prove  what  he  had 
before  said?  No.  He  begs  the  question,  and  shuns  all  proof, 
saying,  "  this  was  one  of  Collier's  reasons  for  doubting  its 
authenticity."  ^^  Doubting V  But  before  it  was,  "  pronounced 
it  spurious."*'  The  nerves  crack,  and  give  way  from  certainty  to 
doubt.  Now  I  again  pronounce  it  false;  and  if  not,  give  us  the 
proof.  These  are  specimens  of  his  ^^  host  of  witnesses  f^  you 
may  measure  the  rest  by  them,. 

As  to  Crabbe,  history  tells  us  he  published  editions  of  the 
councils  in  1538,  1551,  1558.  Dupin  and  Matthew  Paris  were 
claimed  by  the  gentleman,  against  the  authenticity  of  the  third 
canon.  But  lo  !  when  I  adduce  their  real  testimony,  it  is  directly 
against  him.  All  he  says,  in  reply,  is,  if  Matthew  Paris  repre- 
sented the  council  as  of  various  opinions  and  feelings  about  the 
seventy  canons,  does  that  prove  that  they  passed,  and  that  the 
third  is  genuine?  Answer.  Matthew  Paris  was  cited  by  the 
gentleman  io  prove  the  canon  spurious.  I  proved,  from  Matthew 
Paris,  that  all  he  really  said,  was,  that  the  council  murmured  over 
the  whole  seventy;  and  Dupin  (though  quoted  by  Mr.  Hughes  as 
on  his  side)  expressly  says,  the  council  did  not  debate  the  canons, 
but  passed  them  in  silence,  which  was  received  as  approbation. 

Mr.  President,  I  regret  this  tedious  discussion.  But  it  was 
called  for — and  will  be  useful.  I  will  here  say,  that  never  in  my 
life  did  I  know  so  many  literary  frauds  in  so  short  a  compass  as 
this  gentleman  has  practised.  I  blush,  sir,  to  have  to  expose 
them.  There  is  one  article  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  which  the 
gentleman  ought  by  this  time  to  believe,  even  if  he  should  not  like 
it.  He  will  find  it  in  the  25th  Chap.  6th  Section,  which  identi- 
fies the  man  of  sin. 

18 


138 

The  smart  play  upon  the  word  ^^ praesentibus^''  will  not  pervert 
my  meaning ;  which  was,  that  it  referred  to  the  secular  powers 
present,  when  and  where  the  decree  should  be  executed;  and 
hence  "  secular  powers,"  or  secular  powers  present,  or  on  the 
spot  if  you  please,  meant,  in  that  instance,  the  same  thing. 

The  gentleman  quotes  the  names  (not  a  word  of  their  testimony) 
of  the  Universities  of  Paris,  Douay,  Louvaire,  &c.,  &c.,  to  dis- 
prove the  authorities  I  brought.  But  pray  did  not  the  gentleman 
in  the  same  speech  discard  the  opinions  of  whole  tribes  of  com- 
mentators and  bishops,  <fcc.  ?  He  also  refers  to  Pope  Pius  Sixth's 
rescript  to  the  archbishops  of  Ireland  in  1791 ;  and  sends  us  to  the 
appendix  of  the  work  of  William  Sampson,  Esq.  "  on  the  Catho- 
lic Question  in  America."  But  why  not  give  us  "  at  least  Jive  or 
fifteen  words^''  of  this  rescript  on  liberty.  What  is  it?  We  can- 
not take  his  opinion,  or  ipse  dixit.  If  his  word  will  do,  then  (as 
is  usual  at  Rome)  we  may  save  much  trouble ;  and  settle  the  ques- 
tion by  authority. 

The  gentleman  seems  not  at  all  pleased  with  Dens^s  Theology, 
Yet  he  is  a  standard  writer ;  and  now  he  is  of  special  value,  in 
evidence,  because  the  "  Catholic"  prelates  of  Ireland  have  publicly 
endorsed  him.  It  was  proved  by  unanswerable  testimony,  at  the 
said  meeting  of  Protestants  in  Exeter  Hall,  London,  June  20th, 
1835,  that  as  early  as  A.  D.  1808,  "  at  a  meeting  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  prelates  of  Ireland,  it  was  unanimously  agreed  that  Dens^& 
Complete  Body  of  Theology  was  the  best  book  on  the  subject  of  the 
doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Churchy  as  a  se- 
cure standard  for  the  guidance  of  those  clergymen  who  had  not 
access  to  libraries.''^  The  work  is  ther^ore  full  authority. 
Now  from  this  book  I  made  ample  (and  they  were  surely  startling) 
quotations  in  my  last  address.  Has  the  gentleman  denied  that 
they  were  the  author'' s  belief  o{  Catholic  doctrine  ?  Who  is  right  ? 
Mr.  Hughes,  or  the  learned  Dens  and  the  prelates  oi  six  millions 
of  Catholics  ?  I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  to  review  my  citations  from 
Dens,  in  the  light  of  the  above  facts  ;  and  I  beg  leave  here,  by  way 
of  refreshing  the  subject,  to  say  that  Dens  declares  "  all  Protest- 
ants, as  Lutherans,  Calvinists,  &c.,  worse  heretics  than  Jeivs  and 
pagans  ;  that  baptism  brings  them  in  the  power  of  the  church, 
{for  they  allow  our  bajjtism  to  be  valid,)  and  that  it  is  the  right 
and  duty  of  the  church  to  compel  heretics,  by  corporeal  punish- 
metits,  to  return  to  the  faith,  or  if  they  will  not,  that  confisca- 
tion of  property,  exile,  imjirisonment ,  and  death,  are  to  be  de- 
nounced against  them.''^  And  now  I  invite  the  gentleman's  at- 
tention to  the  contents  of  the  book,  and  the  proofs  of  the  sanction 
of  it  by  \\ie  prelates  of  Ireland.  That  the  gentleman  should  com- 
plain of  my  introducing  ne^f^/jroo/"  is  strange,  when  he  it  was  who 
vitiated  the  report  of  the  stenographer;  and  who  insisted  on  re- 
writing the  entire  debate,  after  his  own  plan;  and  who  has  not 


139 

ceased  to  desert  his  old  ground  on  many  points,  and  to  introduce 
new  topics  and  new  matter. 

But  I  will  introduce  an  old  acquaintance.  Joannes  Devoti,  hav- 
ing the  Pope's  imprimatur  to  his  Canonical  Institutes^  a  late 
oracle  from  Rome  ;  and  pledged  to  contain  nothing  contrary  to 
sound  faith  and  good  morals.  (1)  "  Actius  first  attempted  to  take 
from  the  church  all  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  and  legislative 
power ;  and  the  Waldenses,  John  Huss,  Marsilius  FatavinuSj 
Jandwius,  Luther^  Calvin,  Grotius,  have  followed  Jiis  error^ 
having  falsely  thought  that  the  church  had  no  Jurisdiction,  but 
that  all  her  authority  consisted  in  govermnent  and  persuasion. 
After  their  example,  all  protestants  who  maintain  the  right  of  the 
prince,  in  sacred  things,  deny  judicial  power  to  the  church. 
These,  with  Puffendorf,  contend  that  the  church  is  not  a  distinct 
republic  or  state,  as  they  say,  but  only  a  collegium,;  and  with 
Mosheim,  Boherner,  Budaeus,  and  others,  deny  to  the  church  all 
judicial  power  ;  and  thinking  it  to  pertain  to  the  right  of  majesty 
in  the  secular  prince,  attribute  only  a  collegiate  right  to  the 

church In  the  same  mire  sticks,  (in  eodem  lato  haesitat,) 

P.  La  Borde,  who,  in  his  small  work  entitled  '  Principles  concern- 
ing the  Nature,  Distinction,  and  Limits  of  the  T'wo  Powers^ 
T'emporal  and  Spiritual,^  endeavours  to  undermine  and  take  away 
the  power  given  by  Christ  to  the  church,  not  merely  of  govern- 
ment by  councils  and  persuasion,  but  also  of  decreeing  by  laws, 
and  of  compulsion,  and  of  coercing  with  punishment  those  who 
are  worthy  of  it,  [cogendique,  et  poena  coercendi  eos,  qui  poena 
.sunt  digni] ;  and  who  subjects  the  ecclesiastical  ministry  in  such 
s.  way  to  the  secular  power,  as  to  insist  that  to  it  belongs  the 
cognizance  and  jurisdiction  of  all  external  and  sensible  govern- 
ment. Benedict  XIV.,  (Pope),  condemned  this  depraved  and  per- 
nicious treatise  in  Const,  ad  Assiduas,  44.,  t.  4.,  &;c.,  &c. ;  jiad 
-the  like  error  of  Patavinus  and  Jandunus  was  lo72g  before  con- 
demned by  John  XXIL,  Const,  licet  juxta  doctrinam."  Here  we 
have  din  honest  Roman!  He  has  no  prevarication  ;  but  freely  tells 
the  whole  truth,  and  brings  the  authority  ea?  cathedra  of  two  Pon- 
tiffs to  sustain  his  doctrine  of  the  judicial  and  coercive  power-  of 
the  church  with  penal  sanctions.  The  incidental  testimony  in  be- 
half of  Protestant  opinions  in  the  case  of  Luther,  Calvin,  the 
Waldenses,  Huss,  and  "  the  Protestants,''''  is  very  striking;  and 
as  much  contradicts  Mr.  Hughes  on  that  side,  as  his  papal  claims 
do  on  the  other.  Huss  was  condemned  to  the  stake  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constance,  for  holding  such  doctrines  as  *'  That  the  papal 
dignity  savours  of  Caesar;  and  the  institution  and  headship  of  the 
Pope  was  derived  from  his  power  ;^^  "  that  the  doctrine  of  hand- 
ing over  to  the  civil  arm  those  who,  after  ecclesiastical  censure, 
refused  to  retract,  was  like  the  high  priests,  scribes  and  pharisees, 

(1)  Book  III.,  tit.  1.,  sec.  3.  "  On  the  Judicial  rower  of  the  Church:' 


140 

who  delivered  Jesus  to  Pilate,  saying,  it  is  not  lawful  for  us  to 
put  any  man  to  death  ;  and  those  who  handed  over  such  persons 
were  worse  homicides  than  Pilate  :"  "  that  excommunications, 
interdicts,  ^-c,  degraded  the  laity,  exalted  the  clergy,  and  pre- 
pared the  way  for  Antichrist;"  and  the  like.  To  these  the  author 
quoted  above,  refers.  The  converse  of  these  is  popery;  so  Huss's 
sentence  declares,  and  its  execution  seals  it. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  also,  that  the  doctrines  attributed  by 
Devoti  to  Protestants  in  the  previous  extracts,  though  retaining  a 
taint  of  church  and  state,  are  so  far  beloiv  the  claims  of  popery, 
that  they  were  denounced  as  pulling  down  tlie  rights  and  judicial 
power  of  the  church  !  How  lofty  then  must  her  pretensions  be  ! 
But  we  are  not  left  to  conjecture.  The  same  author  tells  us,  (1) 
that  the  church  has  of  right  the  power  to  punish  clergymen,  and 
of  herself  inflicts  on  offenders  lashes,  fines,  imprisonment,  exile, 
and  other  punishments.'''  Now,  when  we  collect  the  testimony 
of  Bossuet,  and  Dens,  and  the  Rhemish  annolators,  and  Dupin,  and 
Devoti  (and  to  name  no  more,)  the  reigning  Pope,  it  is  clear  that 
they  all  concur  in  the  doctrine  that  the  Catholic  Church  has  a 
right  io  punish  temporally  ;  that  she  is  intolerant  oi false  religions 
or  heresies ;  and  that  all  modern  protectants  are  such  heretics. 
If  Mr.  Hughes  says,  these  are  their  opinions,  we  ask,  is  he  infal- 
lible? Are  not  his  too  opinions?  Shall  we  believe  him  against 
«o  many,  and  so  able  witnesses,  on  the  other  side  ?  And  besides, 
they  bring  abundant yjroq/*'  / — What  shall  we  say  in  reply  to  them? 
Were  they  all  mistaken  in  their  proofs?  Is  Mr.  Hughes  wiser 
than  all  these  ?  The  answer  is  very  simple.  He  that  runs  may 
read.  They  lived  in  Rome,  France,  Belgium,  Ireland.  He  ^lives 
IN  THE  United  States  ! 

We  have  now  given  several  decrees  of  "  infallible  councils," 
which  directly  prove  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
religion  are  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty ;  and  we  have 
given  abundant  testimony  from,  commentators,  a  multitude  of  Bel- 
gian bishops,  and  divers  authors  of  successive  ages,  and  various 
nations,  showing  that  the  meaning  attributed  to  these  decrees  by 
us,  was  the  common  and  received  sense  of  Catholic  Europe  for 
ages.  Surely  it  were  a  singular  accident,  that  they  should  all 
concur  to  slander  their  own  church! — Yet  if  Mr.  Hughes  be 
right,  they  do.  Now,  if  he  may  cite  modern  universities,  I  may 
adduce  all  those  authorities,  with  some  claim  to  be  proof  in  the 
case.  And  if  Mr.  Hughes  expects  his  declarations  to  have  iveight, 
why  discard  their  overwhelming  testimony — when  so  many  are 
against  him,  (including  the  now  reigning  Pope) ;  and  when  they 
were  in  circumstances  so  much  belter  fitted  to  give  an  unbiassed 
and  true  statement? 

Reserving  other  councils  for  future  use,  I  proceed  to  obey  the 

(1)  Lib.  IV.,  tit.  1.,  sec.  10. 


141 

gentleman's  call  for  a  bull  of  a  pope  in  which  persecution  is 
taught, — I  cite  the  bull  in  Coena  Domini.  Of  this  memorable 
bull,  the  PARLIAMENT  OF  Paris,  in  its  proceedings,  {as  extracted 
from  its  Registers,)  A.  D.  1688,  upon  the  Pope's  bull  on  the 
franchises  in  the  city  of  Rome,  <fcc.,  &c.,  thus  speaks: — "  And  to 
give  some  colour  to  so  scandalous  an  innovation,  he  (the  Pope) 
refers  to  that  famous  bull  styled  In  Coena  Domini,  because  it  is 
read  at  Rome  every  Thursday  of  the  holy  week.  True  it  is,  that 
if  this  decree,  whereby  the  popes  declare  themselves  sovereign 
MONARCHs  OF  THE  WORLD,  be  legitimate,  the  majesty  royal  will 
then  depend  on  their  humour;  all  our  liberties  will  be 
ABOLISHED,  the  sccular  judges  will  no  longer  have  the  power  to 
try  the  possession  of  benefices,  nor  the  civil  and  criminal  causes 
OF  ecclesiastical  persons,  and  we  shall  quickly  see  our- 
selves BROUGHT  under  THE  YOKE  OF  THE  INQUISITION."       HcrC  is 

a  great  nation's  parliament — I  suppose  the  gentleman  will  again 
call  it  infidel;  yet  it  may  be  presumed  to  know  evils  which  it  so 
grievously /e/^.  The  bull  is  taken  from  the  Bullarium  of  Laertius 
Cherubinus,  Rome,  1638,  tom.  iii.,  p.  183,  the  sixty-third  con- 
stitution of  Paul  V.  "  The  excommunication  and  anathema- 
tizing of  all  heretics,  ^c,  <^c.  which  is  wont  to  be  published 
on  Maunday  Thursday.  As  for  almost  all  the  chapters  of 
this  bull  [besides  the  third  Extrav.  of  Paul  II.,  and  the  first 
Extrav.  of  Sixtus  IV.  in  the  title  of  Penance  and  Remissions] 
you  have  them  before  ordained  in  the  first  constitution  of 
Urban  V.,  f.  215;  in  the  twenty-fifth  constitution  of  Julius  II., 
'f.  482  ;  in  the  tenth  constitution  of  Paul  III.,  f.  522;  and  in  the 
eighty-first  constitution  of  Gregory  XIII.,  f.  348,  lib.  2.  Other 
bulls  of  this  nature,  called  bulls  in  Coena  Domini,  I  have  pur- 
posely omitted,  (says  the  compiler,)  being  content  with  these ; 
from  which  it  may  appear  that  the  popes  have  made  some  varia- 
tion in  them — according  to  the  exigency  of  the  times.  Yet  I 
would  not  omit  those  which  follow,  as  being  especially  necessary, 
and  particularly  published  upon  the  several  chapters  of  this  bull. 
There  is  extant,  therefore,  in  this  collection,  a  particular  edict  of 
Nicholas  III.,  about  the  first  section  of  this  bull,  in  his  Second 
Constitution,  sup.  fol.  143.  Concerning  section  second  there  is 
extant  Constitution  fifth  of  Pius  II.,  f.  290,  lib.  1.  Concerning 
section  fourth  there  is  extant  Constitution  seventh  of  Pius  V., 
f.  137.,  1.  2.  Concerning  section  seventh  is  extant  Constitution 
third  of  Nicholas  V.,  f.  283,  1.  1.  Concerning  section  ten  is  ex- 
tant a  canon  of  Callistus  in  CXXIII.,  Constitution  twenty-fourth, 
q.  3."  And  thus  the  compiler  proceeds  to  fortify,  by  twice  as 
many  authorities  as  we  have  here  recited,  all  the  great  principles 
of  this  infamous  bull.  He  adduced  the  acts  of  not  less  than 
EIGHTEEN  popcs,  and  some  of  them  again  and  again,  to  prove  that 
it  rests  on  cumulative,  undisputed,  infallible  authority;  and  I  recite 
these  otherwise  disgusting  details,  to  show  that  an  army  of  popes 


142 

will  meet  Mr.  Hughes  at  every  step  of  his  denials  and  evasions. 
Truly  this  is  a  cluster  from  the  vine  of  Sodom  and  the  grapes  of 
Gomorrah ! 

Here  follows  some  material  parts  of  the  document  itself: — 

'*  Paul,  bishop,  servant  of  the  servants  of  God,  in  perpetual 
memory  of  the  thing  now  decreed.'''' 

The  introductory  paragraph  tells  the  faithful  that  the  unity  of 
the  whole  church  doth  flow  from  the  "  Roman  Pontiff,  who  is 
Chrisfs  vicar  and  St.  Peter's  successor :'' — That  " //te  Popes  of 
Home,  his  predecessors,  on  the  day  dedicated  to  the  anniversary 
commemoration  of  our  Lord's  Supper,  have  been  accustomed  an- 
nually to  exercise  the  spiritual  sivord  of  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
and  the  wholesome  weapons  of  justice,  by  the  ministry  of  the  su- 
preme apostolate,  and  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  salvation  of 
souls.'' 

Here  it  is  proved  that  this  was  an  annual  service. 

Sect.  1.  "  We  excommunicate  and  anathematize,  in  the  name  of 
God  Almighty,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  by  the  authority 
of  the  blessed  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  and  by  our  own,  all 
Hussites,  Wickliffites,  Lutherans,  Zuinglians,  Calvinists,  Ana- 
baptists, Trinitarians,  and  apostates  from  the  Christian  faith, 
and  all  heretics  by  whatsoever  name  they  are  called,  or  of  what- 
soever sect  they  be.  Also  their  adherents,  receivers,  favourers, 
and  generally  any  defenders  of  them;  together  with  all  who, 
WITHOUT  OUR  AUTHORITY,  (siue  nostra  auctoritate,)  and  that  of  the 
./Ipostolic  See,  knowingly  read,  keep,  print,  or  any  way,  for 
any  cause  whatever,  publicly,  or  privately,  on  any  pretext  or  co- 
lour, DEFEND    their    BOOKS    CONTAINING  HERESY,  Or  TREATING    OF 

RELIGION,  as  also  schismatics,  and  those  who  withdraw  them- 
selves and  recede  obstinately  from  the  obedience  of  us,  or  the 
Popes  of  Rome  for  the  time  being."  Here  surely  wore  than 
*'  the  wicked  Albigenses"  are  meant !  All,  all  out  of  the  Roman 
Church  are  cut  off,  and  doomed  to  eternal  woe  !  And  the  liberty 
o£ printing,  reading,  and  even  of  thought  itself,  is  levelled  to  the 
dust. 

The  second  section  curses,  as  above,  and  interdicts  "  all  uni- 
versities, colleges,  and  chapters,  by  whatsoever  name  they  may 
be  called,  who  appeal  from  ihe  orders  and  decrees  of  Popes  to  a 
General  Council;"  and  curses  also,  "  all  who  favour  or  aid  the 
appeal."  This  usurps  the  empire  of  letters,  and  forbids  all 
appeals. 

The  third  section  goes  to  sea  ;  not  content  with  ruling  all  lands, 
and  curses  *'  all  pirates"—- that  is,  who  trouble  "  our  seas." 

The  fourth  legislates  against  "  wreckers"  in  all  seas.  These 
laws  are  good :  but,  who  ever  set  Peter  and  his  successors  over 
the  sea  ?  Ah,  I  forget !  Peter  was  a  fisherman  !  therefore,  all 
seas  are  subject  to  the  Pope. 

Fifth.  "  Also,  we  excommunicate  arid  anathematize  all  who  im- 


143 

pose  or  "augment  any  new  tolls,  or  gabels  (excise  taxes,)  in  theif 
dominions,  except  in  cases  permitted  to  them  by  law,  or  by  spe- 
cial leave  of  the  apostolic  see,  or  who  impose  or  exact  such  taxes 
forbidden  to  he  imposed  or  augmented.'''''  Here  he  takes  the  key 
of  the  treasury  into  his  own  hands  ;  as  before  he  had  grasped  the 
TRIDENT,  the  spiritual  sword  and  the  "  keys  of  St.  Peter. ''^ 

Seventh,  curses  all  who  furnish  to  "  Saracens,  Turks,  and  other 
enemies  and  foes  of  the  Christian  religion,  or  to  those  who  are 
expressly  and  byname  declared  heretics,  {as  Hussites,  Lutherans, 
Calvinists,  &c.  &c.)  "  by  the  sentence  of  us  or  this  holy  *ee— - 
horses,  arms,  iron,  wire  of  iron,  tin,  steel,  and  all  kinds  of  m,etal 
and  warlike  instruments,  timher,  hemp,  ropes  made  as  well  of 
any  other  matter, ^^  &c.  &c.  Here  he  becomes  Head  of  Hosts, 
and  commissary-genefal  to  the  holy  war  against  all  foreign  and 
domestic  foes  ;  for  there  were  domestic  as  well  as  foreign  cru- 
sades ;  and  he  expressly  includes  "  all  heretics  nam,ed  by  us.^^ 

There  are  no  less  than  thirty  of  these  sections,  in  which  this 
**  great  hunter  of  rnen^^    raves  through  the   world  and  lays  his 
curse  and  his  claim  on  all  the  civil  and  religious  rights  of  man — 
leaving  not  even  a  grave  for  a  heretic! 
We  must  select  some  specimens. 

Section  thirteen  curses  those  who  carry  spiritual  causes  before 
secular  tribunals,  by  appealing  from  the  Pope's  letters,  *'  to  lay- 
power,"  even  though  the  civil  power  should  require  it. 

Fourteen,  curses  those  who  "  by  their  own  authority  and 
defacto,''^  "  take  away  the  cognizance  of  tithes,henefices,^^  &,c.  and 
^*from  ecclesiastical  judges,''''  even  though  the  persons  doing  it 
**  should  be  presidents  of  councils,  chanceries,  parliaments,  chan- 
cellors, (fcc.  of  any  secular  princes,  whether  emperors,  kings, 
dukes,  or  any  other  dignitary," 

Fifteen;  curses  those  who  draw,  or  cause  to  he  drawn,  "  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  upon  any  pretence  whatsoever,  ecclesias- 
tical persons,  (as  Mr.  Hughes,)  chapters,  convents,  &;c.  &c.  he- 
fore  them  to  their  tribunal,  audience,  chancery,  council  or  par- 
liament, against  the  rules  of  the  canon  law.  Here,  on  the 
authority  of  the  canon  law,  all  ecclesiastical  causes  and  persons 
are  declared  by  the  Pope  to  be  exempted  from  civil  courts,  and  he 
excommunicates  and  anathematizes  all  who  oppose  his  will!  Did 
Presbyterians  ever  make  such  demands  ? 

The  sixteenth  curses  those  who  hinder  these  ecclesiastical 
judges  in  their  jurisdiction,  and  rests  their  claim,  on  "  the  canons 
and  sacred  ecclesiastical  constitutions  and  decrees  of  general 
councils,  especially  that  of  Trent.''''  Here  is  "  infallible'^  proof! 
Eighteen,  curses  all  who  impose,  (without  permission  of  the 
Voipe,)  even  with  the  consent  of  the  clergy,  any  taxes  of  any 
kind  on  the  clergy  of  Rome  or  on  the  rents  of  churches,  monas- 
teries, <5'C.,  and  he  renews  against  them  the  canons  of  the  last 
Lateran,  as  well  as  other  general  councils  with  the  censures  and 


144 

punishments  contained  in  them.     Here  is  complete  exemption  of 
the  clergy. 

Twentieth,  curses  all  who  dare  to  interterfere  in  any  way  with 
St.  Peter's  patrimony,  and  the  lands,  cities,  Sfc,  subject  to  the 
JURISDICTION  of  the  Church  of  Rome."  This  is  the  heart  of 
Italy,  and  a  temporal  dominion  over  m,illions  of  subjects,  whose 
emperor,  the  Pope,  is  elected  for  life  by  cardinals  J  Is  this  not 
opposed  to  liberty  ? 

Twenty-first,  These  acts,  not  to  be  recalle^l,  except  by  the  Pope, 
(he  has  never  done  it,)  and  to  continue  in  force  and  be  put  in 
execution.  (They  are  now  binding  upon  Mr.  Hughes  and  every 
Catholic  on  earth.) 

Twenty-sixth  announces  their  publication,  ♦♦  that  those  whom 
these  processes  concern  may  pretend  no  excuse  or  allege  ignor- 
ance." 

Twenty-seventh  orders  their  publication,  by  Patriarchs, 
Archbishops,  Ordinaries,  and  Prelates,  directly  or  by  others, 
once  every  year,  or  oftener,  (semel  in  anno — aut  etiam  pluries,) 
*'  if  they  see  fit,  when  the  greater  part  of  the  people  shall  be  met 
for  divine  service — and  to  the  faithful,  they  are  to  be  told, 
declared,  and  kept  before  their  minds.''' 

Thirtieth.  The  wrath  of  Almighty  God,  and  of  Peter  and 
Paul,  is  denounced  against  all  who  dare  to  oppose  these  excommu- 
nications, curses,  interdicts,  &c.  &c.  Such  is  this  terrific  sys- 
tem, sustained  by  the  authority  of  a  crowd  of  Popes,  and  resting 
its  claims  on  Divine  right,  as  expressed  by  constitutions,  general 
councils,  and  the  canon  law. 

Well  did  the  French  Parliament  call  the  Popes  "the  declared 
MONARCHs  OF  THE  WORLD."  Thcsc  Popcs  HOW  head  one  hundred 
and  twenty  millions  of  people!  We  may  now  understand  one  of  their 
mottos  :  Urbis  et  orbris.  *'  The  city  and  the  world."  The 
mistress  of  the  world.  If  this  bull  be  not  published  in  Rome  or 
in  America  at  this  day,  it  is  still  unrepealed,  and  still  in  force 
and  lying  in  the  Vatican, 

"  Hushed  ^n  grim  repose. 
Expects  its  evening  prey." 

Let  the  day  come  which  will  make  it  prudent  to  republish  it, 
and  the  nations  will  again  hear  this  Monarch's  voice. 

With  "  Ate  by  his  side  come  hot  from  hell, 
Cry  havoc, .and  let  slip  the  dogs  of  rvar." 

Before  I  close,  jsl  few  things  in  the  gentleman's  reply  must  be 
briefly  noticed. 

In  my  last  speech  I  quoted  from  the  itidex  of  the  Acta  Ecclesiae 
to  show  how  rife  persecution  is  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  when  the 


145 

heads  of  chapters  were  thus  hedged  with  damnation  of  all 
sorts,  lemporaly  social,  spiritual,  against  heretics  such  as  we. 
He  answers  it  with  a  sneer  and  a  mild  extract  from  our  standards, 
stating  the  duty  of  Christians  to  marry  Christians.  He  has  fur- 
nished, without  intending  it,  a  most  striking  contrast  between  the 
two  religions,  as  any  one  may  see,  who  will  refer  to  the  quota- 
tions from  that  index,  given  by  me  in  the  last  speech. 

He  also  attempts  to  fasten  the  abolition  odium  on  Presbyte- 
rians. In  the  former  Controversy,  (1)  when  he  supposed  the  pub- 
lic mind  felt  a  little  differently  on  this  subject,  he  insulted  the 
nation  after  the  coarse  and  ribaldrous  manner  of  Daniel  O'Connel, 
and  actually  retailed  one  of  Garrison'' s  anecdotes,  as  follows  : 
**  But  when  you  wish  to  pay  a  compliment  to  '  our  inemorahle 
Declaration  of  Independence,''  were  you  not  rather  unfortunate 
in  coupling  it  with  an  allusion  to  slavery  ?  It  reminds  me  of  the 
negro  slave,  who,  on  his  way  to  Georgia  through  Washington, 
shook  his  manacled  hands  at  the  capitol,  and  began  to  sing, 
*  Hail  Columbia,  happy  land.'"  But  now,  he  says,  *'  the  conse- 
quences of  this  Presbyterian  doctrine,  (which  I  repeat  is  not  the 
doctrine  of  Paul,)  begin  to  be  felt  in  the  South  as  well  as  in  the 
North;  making  the  master  a  criminal  against  God  for  holding 
slaves,  and  the  slaves  criminal  against  God  for  submitting  to  the 
condition."  Now,  slavery,  African  slavery,  originated  (in 
this  hemisphere)  with  a  catholic,  the  good  Las  Cassas  ;  and  in  the 
27th  canon  of  the  Third  Lateran,  heretics  are  doomed  to  "  slavery,''^ 
if  not  *'  exterminated  ;^^  and  now  the  papal  champion  squints  at 
its  defence.  The  Presbyterian  Church  has  often  publicly  avowed 
the  doctrine,  that  slavery  is  a  great  evil,  and  as  such,  to  be  mourn- 
ed over  and  removed  so  soon  as  the  highest  interests  of  the  re- 
spective parties  will  allow.  But  we  do  not  approve  the  ferocious 
spirit  and  false  doctrines  of  modern  abolitionists,  any  more  than 
the  slavery  doctrines  of  the  Council  of  Lateran,  Las  Cassas,  or 
in  Bohemia,  and  the  conquest  of  South  America.  (It  is  strange 
that  Garrison  and  Priest  Hughes  are  the  most  violent  in  their 
attacks  on  Presbyterians.)  The  following  very  recent  declaration 
of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  may  serve  to  show  our  views  on 
this  whole  subject. 

"  In  this  day  of  public  excitement  and  fanatical  excess,  the 
Synod  feel  called  upon  to  warn  the  churches  against  the  agitators 
of  the  public  mind,  who,  reckless  of  consequences,  and  desperate 
in  spirit,  are  endangering  the  integrity  of  the  American  Union, 
and  the  unity  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  by  the  unchristian 
methods  which  they  adopt  to  advance  tliO  cause  of  abolition.  The 
Presbyterian  Church,  through  her  supreme  judicature,  and  other 
bodies,  has  often  and  freely  expre-'^sed  her  views  of  the  evils  of 
slavery.     But  at  the  present  crisis  it  is  earnestly  recommended  to 

(1)  Letter  19. 
19 


146 

all  our  people,  to  discountenance  tlie  revolutionary  agitations  and 
unrighteous  plans  and  doctrines  of  the  self-styled  abolitionists, 
who  it  is  firmly  believed  are  retarding,  more  than  all  other  causes 
combined,  the  progress  of  universal  emancipation.  If  they  suc- 
ceed they  must  rend  the  Church  and  the  Union  in  tvv^ain,  deluge 
the  land  in  blood,  and  destroy  the  best  hopes  of  the  unhappy 
slaves.  The  Synod  would  be  very  far  from  even  appearing  to 
excuse  the  spirit  of  misrule  and  lawless  violence  which  has  been 
exhibited  of  late  in  almost  every  part  of  our  beloved  country. 
But  when  such  a  spirit  is  known  to  be  rife  and  abroad  in  the  land, 
the  friends  of  Christ  are  called  on  in  a  special  manner  to  shun 
the  occasions  of  such  excitements  ;  and  to  sustain,  by  every  proper 
available  influence,  the  dominion  of  law  and  public  order.  We 
cannot  forbear  to  add,  that  those  who  take  advantage  of  such  a 
crisis  to  agitate  the  land,  assume  a  terrible  responsibility  for  all 
the  consequences  ;  and  the  guilt  of  such  a  system  is  aggravated 
by  the  consideration,  that  it  seems  to  be  a  part  of  the  design  to 
produce  public  excesses,  and  then  profit  by  thetn.^^ 

The  above  reference  to  slavery  grew  out  of  the  gentleman's 
perversion  of  an  important  principle  before  asserted  and  7iow 
maintained  by  me.     He  had  said  in  a  former  speech,  "  that  the 

DOCTRINES    OF  CATHOLICS  LEAVE  THEM   PERFECT  LIBERTY  TO    EXER- 
CISE THEIR  OWN  DISCRETION  ABOUT  CIVIL  LIBERTY."     I  replied  that 

it  was  not  so  with   Presbyterians.     Their  principles  pledged 

THEM  TO  BE  FREE,   and  tO    HOLD  TO    THE    EQUAL,    UNIVERSAL,    CIVIL 
AND    RELIGIOUS    RIGHTS  OF    ALL    OTHER    MEN,    DENOMINATIONS    AND 

PEOPLE ;  and  that  the  gospel  is  the  charter  of  freedom  to  man. 
With  these  doctrines  our  standards  are  erect  and  replete.  But  -a  pa- 
pist may  be  a  tyrant  or  submit  to  be  ruled  by  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral tyrants  without  violating  his  doctiines.  So  says  Mr.  Hughes: 
*'  may  exercise  his  own  discretion."  Hence,  when  I  call  on  him 
to  show  one  doctrine  against  oppression,  or  one  oppressive  decree 
or  bull  that  has  been  rescinded,  he  is  dumb.  He  cannot  show 
one  article  in  all  his  creed,  councils,  catechism,  or  bulls,  that  toler- 
ates any  religion  but  his  own,  much  less  that  asserts  "  all  are 
equally  to  be  protected.'^  Now,  this  is  really  giving  up  the  ques- 
tion in  debate. 

Again.  He  says  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.,  (which  binds  all  Catho- 
lics,) in  avowing  that  it  "  receives  all  other  things  delivered,  de- 
fined, and  declared  by  the  sacred  canons  and  general  councils," 
means  only  "  tenets  of  faith  and  morals.''  But  how  obviously 
false !  It  is  written,  "  caetera  item  omnia'" — all  other  things  ;" 
not  "  tenets"  merely,  but  ull  other  things,  delivered,  defined,  and 
declared  by  the  sacred  canoj^^.  I  ask,  is  not  the  third  canon  of 
Fourth  Lateran,  and  the  twenty-seventh  canon  of  Third  Lateran, 
a  sacred  canon?  and  were  they  not  ''delivered  by  general  coun- 
cils?'" And  all  the  persecuting  canons  are  included  in  this  "  re- 
ception.''    This  is  made  clear  by  the  next  clause  ;  *'  and  I  like- 


147 

wise  also  condemn,  reject,  and  anathematize  all  things  contrary 
thereto,  and  all  heresies  whatsoever,'"  &,c.  Here  two  ideas  are 
presented:  1,  all  things  contrary  to  the  sacred  canons  and 
general  councils  are  condemned  in  general^  2,  and  particularly 
**  all  heresies.''^  If  the  gentleman  reply,  then  some  things  besides 
heresies  are  here  condemned/  True  ;  and  some  things  besides  what 
the  gentleman  calls  '^doctrines  delivered'^  are  here  received;  viz., 
discipline,  which  persecutes  and  forbids  to  tolerate  any  other  re- 
ligion; and,  by  the  authority  of  God,  reqiiires  that  heretics  shall 
be  exterminated.  This  is  "received;"  and  call  it  "  doctrine"  or 
"  discipline,''^  to  this  Mr.  Hughes  is  bound  this  night  by  a  solemn 
oath,  and  denies  it  at  the  risk  of  papal  displeasure.  Between  his 
religion,  his  conscience,  and  his  country's  Constitution,  I  do  most 
sincerely  pity  him. 

The  Rhemish  Testament.  Then  he  abjures  it.  But  it  had 
great  favour  in  Europe.  What  he  says  "  of  the  text,"  ex- 
posing the  American  publishers,  is  laughable.  The  history  of 
the  book  (my  copy  is  European)  is  this  :  When  it  was  found 
that  it  was  impossible  to  keep  the  people  from  having  "  the  texV 
in  English,  the  papists  at  Rheims,  in  1584,  got  up  a  translation  at- 
tended by  the  horrid  notes  of  which  I  gave  some  specimens.  No 
wonder  the  gentleman  recoils.  But  the  notes  speak  the  opinions 
of  very  learned  papists  about  Roman  Catholic  doctrines.  And 
pray,  did  the  Pope  ever  condemn  the  notes? 

The  gentleman  says,  '*  the  law  for  their  (the  Albigenses)  sup- 
pression did  not  even  pretend  to  rest  for  its -authority  on  any  doc- 
trine of  the  Catholic  Church,  but  upon  the  reward  of  confiscated 
lands,  and  promised  indulgences .^^  1.  Who  passed  the  law? 
Answer.  The  "infallible  council!"  2.  Who  confiscated  the 
lands?  The  "  irfallible  council.'*''  Laymen,  in  both  cases,  were 
silent.  The  Pope  and  clergy  did  it.  3.  Who  promised  "  the  re- 
ward of  indulgences?''^  The  infallible  council.  "  The  power  of 
granting  indulgences  has  been  bestowed  by  Christ  upon  his 
church."  (1)  Indulgences  take  away  the  punishment  (in  this 
world  and  in  purgatory)  due  for  sins;  they  are  to  be  granted  for 
reasonable  causes,  out  of  the  superabundant  merits  of  Christ  and 
his  saints.  Here  then,  for  the  reasonable  cause  of  butchering 
multitudes  of  men,  women  and  children,  the  Church  of  Rome, 
as  Mr.';Hughes  tells  us,  ^^ promised  indulgences^^ ;  and  "on  this  the 
laiv  for  the  suppression  of  the  Albigenses  rested  for  its  authority." 
Then  it  seems  the  church  (\oes  persecute!  and  pays  out  of  "  the 
merits  of  Christ"  for  it?  Only  call  it  not  a  doctrine  !  Oh  ! 
tell  it  not  in  Gath  !  publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of  Askelon  ! ! ! 

The  gentleman  denies  he  charged  me  with  ^'' fraudidently'" 
abridging  the  twenty-seventh  canon  of  Third  Lateran  !  It  is  well 
he  can  yet  blush !     But  in  the  very  last  speech  he  twice  uses  the 

(1)  See  25  Sess.  Counc.  Trent. 


148 

same  term  as  to  Faber  and  my  poor  self;  so  that  he  makes  me 
Faber's  fellow^  though  he  condemns  me  for  putting  our  names  in 
juxtaposition. 

Let  me  ask  the  gentleman  if,  as  he  allows,  (in  the  case  of  the 
Pope  and  Napoleon,)  "  it  be  contrary  to  the  Catholic  religion 
to  alter  the  civil  constitution  of  the  papal  states,  by  which  the 
Catholics  had  been  exclusively  recognised,'*''  to  what  part  of  the 
Catholic  religion  it  was  contrary?  And  is  not  \\\2ii part  which 
is  violated  by  breaking  down  a  church-establishment,  contrary  to 
civil  and  religious  liberty?  Let  the  gentleman  reply.  Here  the 
Pope,  the  principle,  and  the  priest,  are  all  involved ;  and  the  dis- 
cussion is  brought  to  a  very  point! 

At  the  close  of  the  last  address,  I  asked  the  gentleman  a  ques- 
tion, which  I  then  predicted  he  would  not  answer.  Even  so  it  is. 
But  I  repeat  it  once  more.  "  Had  the  majority  in  Italy,  or 
Spain,  a  right  to  establish  the  Catholic  religion  by  law?" 
We  now  expect  an  answer ! 

I  close  with  a  word  as  to  his  "  retreating  from"  the  last  Contro- 
versy. When  our  second  limits  expired,  he  insisted  on  writing  the 
last  letter,  as  he  had  (he  first.  On  my  return  to  the  city  I  proposed  to 
renew  and  finish  the  discussion.  He  declined.  I  went  on  alone  for 
many  weeks.  I  invited  him  to  oral  debate.  He  declined.  I  finished 
the  discussion  in  public  assembly,  calling  for  him.  He  declined. 
I  left  a  standing  invitation  for  him  in  the  newspapers,  as  he  has 
heretofore  told  you.  He  declined.  And  you,  gentlemen,  know 
how  he  came  to  meet  me  here!  And  you  also  know,  how  hard 
it  was  to  hold  him  to  the  point.  And  the  public  will  know  how 
much  he  has  striven  to  shun  the  publication  of  the  debate  ;  by  re- 
fusing the  stenographer's  report,  "  going  to  Mexico,"  &c.  I 
think  all  this  looks  like  retreating :  or  if  the  gentleman  calls  this 
courage,  we  see  his  standard!  But  I  really  wish  to  encourage 
him.  I  am  glad  he  feels  bravely.  We  shall  like  him  all  the  bet- 
ter, if  his  heart  be  the  heart  of  a  man.  For  my  own  part,  I  won- 
der that  he  can  look  his  countrymen  in  the  face,  and  advocate  the 
principles  of  the  papal  hierarchy.  I  should  run  away  from  the 
first  onset.  It  requires  a  good  cause  to  inspire  a  firm  purpose. 
The  militia  captain  who  told  his  heart  to  his  general,  was  a  reso- 
lute,  brave  confessor,  after  the  gentleman's  own  school.  "  Sir,''* 
said  he,  "  i/*  you  were  frightened  half  as  much  as  I  am,  you 
would  run  away  from  the  enemy.'' 


149 


*'/*  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  7^^ 


NEGATIVE  IV.— MR.  HUGHES. 

Mr.  President, — 
Whenever  a  disputant  becomes  the  judge  in  his  own  cause — 
M'henever  the  advocate  assumes  the  office  of  umpire — you  may  take 
it  for  granted  that  he,  himself,  has  but  little  confidence  m  the  quality 
of  his  arguments,  or  in  the  character  of  the  evidence  by  which  he 
supports  them.  I  refer  you  to  the  speech  which  you  have  just 
heard,  as  a  striking  illustration  of  this  remark.  The  tribunal  at 
which  we  stand  is  that  of  public  reason ;  it  expects  us  to  furnish 
evidence  in  the  case  ;  and  the  gentleman,  instead  of  being  a  pleader 
at  the  bar,  becomes  an  oracle  on  the  bench,  and  dictates  the  sen- 
tence. He  will  save  the  public  from  the  trouble  of  forming  a 
judgment,  and  leave  it  only  the  easy  task  of  admiring  the  man 
who  is  at  once  his  own  hero, — his  own  judge, — and  his  own  trum- 
peter. From  all  which,  I  am  inclined  to  infer,  that  the  experience 
which  he  has  already  acquired,  has  hinted  to  him  the  necessity  of 
usurping  the  ermine,  and  anticipating  the  sentence. 

He  had  said  that  this  Society  had  exposed  the  falsehoods  of  a 
communication  to  the  Catholic  Diary.  For  this  he  had  no  au- 
thority in  fact,  and  consequently  has  failed  to  produce  any  proof. 
But  he  makes  no  apology. 

With  regard  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  I  am  content  with  the  ex- 
planation I  have  given  in  my  last  speech.  Where  I  was  mis- 
taken, I  had  the  candour  to  acknowledge  it ;  and  consequently,  to 
vindicate  my  personal  integrity  in  the  opinion  of  honourable  men. 
The  manner  in  which  I  was  led  into  the  mistake  does  no  credit  to 
my  opponent.  A  different  sentence  had  given  rise  to  the  dispute, 
and  instead  of  defending  the  passage  which  he  had^rs^  perverted, 
he  tears  seven  words  out  of  their  connexion  in  another  sentence, 
(containing  above  forty,)  repeats  the  translation  "  the  punishment 
which  ought  to  be  inflicted  on  penitents,"  and  gives  for  the  Latin 
of  this  translation  "  poenam  quam  opportet  pro  illis  poenitentibus 
imponere."  but  of  these  seven  words,  one  (opportet)  is  a  barba- 
rism; and  the  whole,  as  a  translation  of  the  words  *'  the  punish- 
ment which  ought  to  be  inflicted  on  the  penitents,"  is  ungramma- 
tical — nonsense.  Its  sense  and  grammar  depended  on  its  con- 
nexion with  the  whole  sentence,  out  of  which  the  gentleman  was 
pleased  to  garble  it,  and  in  which  it  escaped  my  notice,  when  I 


150 

looked  over  the  canon  the  first  time.  The  matter  being  explained, 
then,  according  to  the  facts,  I  make  him  a  present  of  all  the  glory, 
which  the  whole  affair,  including  my  mistake,  is  calculated  to  re- 
flect on  him  in  the  minds  of  scholars. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  "  imponere,"  as  used  by  the  Council 
of  Trent,  is  to  be  determined  by  the  sense  in  which  Catholics  un- 
derstand it.  Of  that  sense  the  practice  of  the  church  is  the  best 
interpreter.  According  to  this,  "  injungere  poenam"  means  to 
*' enjoin  penance;"  and  "  imponere  poenam"  means  the  same 
thing.  The  gentleman  thought  it  would  help  his  argument  with 
the  ignorant,  to  translate  the  word,  "  injungere,"  by  "  inflict."  But 
even  the  Dictionary  refused  to  sustain  him.  The  other  verb, 
"  imponere,"  has  ainong  its  meanings  *'  to  inflict,"  therefore  it 
does  not  mean  "  to  enjoin."  This  is  his  logic.  But  the  Diction- 
ary itself  refutes  him. 

His  statement  respecting  the  diflerence  between  "  poenitentia,'* 
"  j)enance,"  and  "  poena,"  "  punishment,"  shows  that  he  requires 
instruction.  "  Sacramentum  poenitentiae"  is  the  form  of  expres- 
sion used  by  theologians  to  designate  "  the  sacrament  of  penance." 
In  the  administration  of  this  sacrament,  the  priest  exercises  that 
ministry  which  Christ  instituted,  when  he  said,  '*  Receive  ye  the 
Holy  Ghost,  whose  sins  you  shall  forgive  they  are  forgiven,"  «fec. 
But  it  is  not  enough  that  the  priest  should  be  invested  with  this 
power,  the  penitent  must  have  the  proper  dispositions,  to  receive 
the  benefit  of  this  ministry.  He  must  be  sincerely  sorry,  for  hav- 
ing offended  God  ;  and  firmly  resolved,  by  the  assistance  of  Divine 
grace,  never  to  offend  him  more.  This  is  called  contrition — the 
first  and  most  essential  disposition  to  receive  the  sacrament  of 
penance.  The  next  is  confession  of  the  sins  he  has  committed. 
The  third  is  satisfaction,  and  consists  in  repairing,  (as  far  as  he 
can,)  the  injury  which  he  has  done  to  his  neighbour,  and  the  of- 
fences, he  has  committed  against  God.  If  he  has  wronged  his 
neighbour,  he  must  retract  the  calumny,  and  restore  the  ill-gotten 
goods,  before  he  can  receive  the  benefit  of  the  sacrament.  Now 
all  this  third  part,  or  condition,  is  prescribed,  or  "  enjoined"  by 
the  priest,  and  is  expressed  by  "  poena"  in  Latin,  by  "  penance" 
or  "satisfaction"  in  English.  Hence,  in  the  quotation  from  the 
Council  of  Trent,  "  injungere  poenam,"  "  imponere  poenam," 
means  simply  to  "enjoin  penance" — to  "prescribe  the  satisfac- 
tion." Hence  it  sometimes  happens,  that  restitution  is  made 
through  the  priest.  It  is  a  part  of  the  "  penance,"  "  satisfaction" 
— "  poenam" — that  is  enjoined,  as  an  essential  condition  of  the  for- 
giveness of  sin.  Tliis  the  gentleman  may  call  "  inflicting  punish- 
ment" if  he  chooses.  It  is  a  condition,  however,  entirely  foreign 
to  the  process  of  Presbyterian  regeneration ;  althougli  it  would  not 
be  amiss,  if  the  saints,  in  their  ways  of  righteousness,  would  some- 
times look  a  little  to  the  past,  as  well  as  the  present,  and  the 
future.     To  require  them  to  do  so,  as  a  necessary  condition  of 


151 

Divine  forgiveness,  might,  indeed,  be  considered  as  "  inflicting 
punishment,"  but  it  would  not  be  "  corporeal  castigation,"  not- 
withstanding the  assertion  of  their  minister. 

The  gentleman  ^flies  to  Devoti  for  the  proof,  which,  notwith- 
standing his  talent  at  both  garbling  and  perverting,  cannot  be  made 
out  from  the  Council  of  Trent.  I  meet  him  in  Devoti.  His  first 
reference  is  to  "  Vol.  III.  Book  IV.  §  21."  I  have  examined  the 
reference,  though  there  is  no  "  Book  IV."  to  be  found.  Devoti's 
work  is  on  canon  law,  comprising  civil  and  ecclesiastical  Juris- 
prudence, as  it  existed  in  countries  where  the  church  and  state 
were  united.  It  is  chiefly  historical.  He  speaks  of  laws  and 
usages ;  he  traces  them  to  their  origin ;  he  shows  what  punish- 
ments the  church  inflicted  by  her  own  divine  constitution,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  those,  which  the  state  authorized  her  to  inflict  on 
ecclesiastics,  or  others.  To  the  state  belonged  the  power  by 
which  the  church  was  authorized  to  punish  ecclesiastics,  by  im- 
prisonment or  otherwise.  He  refers  to  the  constitutions  of  the 
empire,  and  the  code  of  Theodosius,  for  the  proof.  The  gentleman 
must  have  seen  this  in  the  note ;  and  a  disposition  to  avoid  de- 
ceiving his  readers,  should  have  induced  him  to  say  so. 

Every  one,  who  has  read  even  a  moderate  course  of  history, 
must  be  familiar  with  the  fact,  that  during  the  middle  ages  eccle- 
ciastical  offenders  were  tried  not  by  civil  but  by  ecclesiastical 
judges.  This  was  by  the  concession  of  the  state.  And  the  same 
principles  which  authorized  the  church  to  try  clerics  for  oflfences, 
authorized  it  also  to  punish  the^n,  when  guilty,  by  civil  penalties. 
It  is  in  connexion  with  this  state  of  things  that  Devoti  speaks  of 
"  prisons,  exile,  pecuniary  fines,  &c."  as  having  been  used  by  the 
church.  The  gentleman's  knowledge  of  history  must  have  been 
very  imperfect,  if  he  remained  ignorant  of  all  this  until  he  saw  it 
in  Devoti. 

.  But  this  is  not  the  question.  The  question  is,  does  the  Catho- 
lic Church  claim,  by  virtue  of  any  tenet  of  faith  or  morals  revealed 
by  Almighty  God,  the  right  to  in^ici  physical  punishment  on  any 
one  ?  Devoti  settles  this  question  in  the  very  paragraph  to  which 
the  gentleman  referred.  He  states  distinctly,  in  that  paragraph — > 
"  Sed  ecclesiastical  coercitiohis  summus  est  gradus  ejectio  eorwtn, 
qui  in  religionem,  vel  in  societatem  peccarunt.  Si  quis  reli- 
gionem  violare  ausus  fuerit  crimine,  schismati,  hseresi,  neque 
monitus  redierit  in  bonam  mentem,  eum  sive  clericus,  sive  laicus 
sit,  eccZesia  EJiciT  A  SACRis,  ET  societate  Christianorum,  jorop^cr 
potestatim,  et  officium  quod  habet  in  omnes  Christianas  curandi, 
regendiqiie  cuncta,  quae  ad  religionem  pertinent^  (1)  "  But 
the  highest  grade  of  ecclesiastical  coercion,  is  the  expulsion  of 
those  who  have  offended  against  religion  or  society.  If  any  one 
has  dared  to  violate  religion  by  crimes,  schism,  heresy,  and  hav- 

(1)  Vol.  III.  p.  20,  31. 


152 

ing  been  admonished,  does  not  return  to  a  good  mind,  him,  the 
church  casts  forth  from  her  sacred  things,  and  from  the  society 
of  Christians,  whether  he  be  a  cleric  or  a  lay  person,  by  the  power 
and  office  which  she  has  in  reference  to  all  Christians,  of  guard- 
ing and  governing  all  things  appertaining  to  religion.'^  Here, 
therefore,  is  Devoti  stating-  that  excommunication  is  the  *'  highest 
grade"  of  "  ecclesiastical  coercion"  in  the  church.  With  this 
means  of  coercion  Christ  invested  her;  any  other  means  of  co- 
ercion, with  which  her  laws  have  been  enforced,  at  any  time,  were 
exercised  or  sanctioned  by  the  civil  power  of  the  state,  for  the  time 
and  place  being,  and  were  revocable  at  the  will  of  the  civil  govern- 
ment. When  the  civil  constitution  of  states  exempted  the  clergy 
from  civil  jurisdiction,  it  did  not  mean  that  their  offences  against 
the  laws  should  go  unpunished.  It  placed  the  authority  to  punish 
them,  at  the  disposal  of  their  ecclesiastical  superiors.  Otherwise 
they  might  claim  impunity  in  defiance  of  both  the  civil,  and  eccle- 
siastical, governments.  They  might  plead  their  privileges,  as  eccle- 
siastics, at  the  civil  tribunal — and  their  rights  as  subjects  of  the 
civil  state,  at  the  bar  of  their  ecclesiastical  judges.  They  might 
say  to  the  state,  "I  am  not  subject  to  your  jurisdiction ;"  and  to 
the  church,  "  you  have  no  right  to  punish  me."  But  the  fact 
was,  that  the  state,  in  relinquishing  its  jurisdiction,  authorized 
their  ecclesiastical  superiors,  in  certain  cases,  to  exercise  over 
them,  its  own  powers  of  civil  punishment.  The  dishonesty  of  the 
gentleman's  attempt,  therefore,  consists  in  his  representing  this  as 
a  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  when  he  had  before  his  eyes, 
and  in  the  same  paragraph,  the  author^ s  statemerits  to  the  con- 
trary, I  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  again  of  this  in  the  case  of 
John  Huss,  of  which  there  is  so  much  misapprehension. 

I  now  turn  to  another  quotation  from  Devoti  which  the  gentle- 
man has  produced,  and  the  purport  of  which  he  has  most  shame- 
fully attempted  to  pervert.  It  is  Vol.  III.  tit.  1.  §  3.  "On  the 
Judicial  Power  of  the  Church."  (1) 

All  Catholics  hold,  as  a  doctrine,  that  the  church,  in  as  much  as 
it  is  a  visible  society,  is  invested  by  its  Divine  author  with  all 
powers  necessary  for  its  own  government;  that  it  has  jurisdiction 
over  all  its  own  members ;  that  it  has  authority  to  make  laws,  and 
require  obedience  to  them  ;  that  it  has  authority  to  judge  in  con- 
troversies ;  condemn  new  doctrines  ;  cast  out  heretics  by  excommu- 
nication, and  do  all  other  things  necessary  to  the  purity  of  doc- 
trine and  unity  of  faith,  by  the  exercise  of  those  spiritual  weapons 
which  Jesus  Christ  bequeathed  for  her  defence,  preservation,  and 
government.  Devoti  lays  this  down  as  the  Catholic  principle  of 
church  government.  He  shows,  or  assumes,  that  the  church  has 
this  power  from  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  from  the  authority  of  men. 
He  then  speaks  of  tho*se  who  denied  that  the  church  has  this 

( 1 )  See  his  last  speech. 


153 

power — generally  all  those,  who,  from  the  beginning  of  Chris- 
tianity until  now,  had  been  cast  out  of. the  church. 

In  opposition  to  this  Catholic  principle,  he  places  "  in  the  same 
miicW" — "  in  eodem  luto" — Luther,  Calvin,  the  Waldenses,  Huss, 
and  a  few  others,  who  maintained  that  the  church  had  "  no  juris- 
diction," but  that  all  her  authority  consisted  in  "  direction  and 
persuasion."  "  Jifter  their  example,''''  he  adds,  "  all  the  Protes- 
tants ivho  admit  the  right  of  the  prince  in  sacred  things,. 
take  from  the  church  all  judicial  power.^^  Here  are  the  two 
antagonist  principles.  The  one  asserting  that  Jesus  Christ  in- 
vested the  church  with  the  right  to  judge,  make  laws,  require 
obedience  to  them  in  all  ecclesiastical  or  spiritual  matters,  and 
by  penalties  of  the  same  spiritual  order,  to  enforce  their  observ- 
ance. Tlie  other  denying  all  "judiciary  power  to  the  church," 
and  ascribing  it  to  the  civil  "  magistrates''^ — "  those  nursing 
fathers  to  the  churcli,"  as  the  >gentleman's  Confession  of  Faith 
has  it.  The  one  asserting  that  there  is  a  spiritual  power  in  the 
church,  for  the  coercion  of  those  who  violate  its  laws.  The 
other  maintaining  that  the  ministers  have  a  right  to  make  laws, 
and  that  the  magistrates  are  bound,  or  at  least  authorized,  to 
enforce  them.  This  is  the  origin  of  the  two  great  ordinances  of 
Presbyterianism — ministry  and  magistracy — of  which  I  shall 
have  occasion  to  speak  in*  the  next  question.  The  reader  can 
judge  which  of  these  two  principles  is  the  most  dangerous  to 
civil  and  religious  liberty — the  Catholic,  which  teaches  that  in 
the  church  itself,  resides  all  necessary  authority,  jurisdiction, 
legislative  and  judicial  power  ybr  its  own  government — and  the 
Presbyterian,  which  places  the  execution  of  ecclesiastical  laws  in 
the  hands  of  the  civil  rulers.  This  is  precisely  the  point  of  view 
in  which  Devoti  discusses  the  question — as  one  of  principle.  Of 
.those  who  would  convert  the  magistrates  of  the  commonwealth 
into  mere  constables  of  the  church,  for  the  execution  of  its  laws, 
he  says  they  all  '•'stick  in  the  same  mud  together.''''  Why? 
Because,  acknowledging  that  in  their  church  there  is  no  authority 
that  could  produce  a  sense  of  obligation  in  the  consciences  of 
men,  they  require  nevertheless  that  the  civil  magistrate  should  be 
the  executive  of  their  church,  to  regulate  those  consciences  in 
accordance  with  their  will.  I  again  refer  the  reader  to  the  quo- 
tation from  Devoti,  for  evidence  that  the  gentleman  has  made  as 
gross  a  perversion  of  a  writer's  meaning,  as  ever  disgraced  the 
annals  of  polemical  disputation. 

On  the  perversion  of  Bossuet,  by  translating  the  word  "  souf- 
france"  "  toleration,"  I  must  make  a  few  remarks,  although  the 
matter  does  not  affect  the  main  question. 

Bossuet  sets  out(l)  by  showing  that  by  the  doctrine  of  Luther, 
Calvin,  Melancthon  and  the  Genevan  Church,  the  prince  has  a 

(1)  Histoire  des  Var.,  liv.  x.  §  IvL 
20 


154 

right  to  use  the  sivord  against  the  enemies  of  the  church.  On 
this  question,  he  says,  there  was  no  dispute  between  him  and 
them.  Calvin  had  reduced  their  doctrine  to  bloody  practice,  by 
putting  Servetus  and  Gentilis  to  death.  He  then  goes  on  to  say, 
that  this  right  of  the  prince  was  admitted  by  the  Calvinist  author; 
who  had  most  bitterly  accused  the  Catholic  Church  of  cruelty. 
He  says,  that  to  deny  this  right,  would  be  to  paralyse  the  public 
power — and  concludes,  '*  de  sorte  qu'il  n'y  a  point  d'illusion  plus 
dangereuse  que  de  donner  la  souffrance  pour  une  caractere  de 
vraie  eglise;"  by  which  it  would  seem  that  the  Calvinists,  whilst 
suffering  under  the  operation  of  their  own  principles^  acting  in 
the  French  government,  would  represent  their  sufferings  as  a 
ihark  of  their  being  the  true  church.  Bossuet  takes  this  plea  from 
them,  by  showing  that  the  descendants  of  the  cruel  Calvin,  and 
the  professors  of  his  intolerant  creed,  could  not  avail  themselves 
of  it;  that,  if  it  were  a  true  mark,  it  would  be  in  favour  only  of 
the  "  Socinians  and  Baptists,"  who  denied  the  magistrate'* s  rigid 
to  punish  offences  against  religion-  Hence,  he  says,  in  the  words 
following:  *' et  je  ne  connois  parmi  les  Chretiens  que  les  Soci- 
niens  et  les  Anabaptistes  qui  s'opposent  a  cette  doctrine." 

He  had  just  proved  that  there  was  no  dispute  between  him  and 
the  Calvinists  on  the  question  of  toleration;  that  their  doctrine 
was  clear,  from  their  own  books,  and  Calvin's  Commentary, 
written  in  the  blood  of  his  victims.  They  could  not  assign 
**  toleratk)n"  as  a  mark  of  their  church,  but  they  7night  have 
assigned  their  sufferings.  So  that  the  gentleman  shows  his  igno- 
rance of  the  French  language,  when  he  says  that  "  souffrance" 
in  this  place,  means  "  toleration,"  and  produces  the  very  nonsense 
which  he  affects  to  avoid.  If  Bossuet  vindicates  the  magistrate's 
right  to  employ  the  sword,  he  does  it  by  virtue  of  doctrines  held 
by  those  against  whom  he  was  writing.  It  was  the  "  argumentum* 
ad  horainem."  He  told  them  "  you  teach  that  right,  and  there- 
fore you  cannot  complain  of  its  exercise  by  the  government." 

The  gentleman  then  quotes  and  perverts  another  passage  of 
Bossuet,  to  support  his  perversion  of  the  word  "  souffrance"  in 
this.  The  reference  is  Six.  Avert,  sec.  115,  tom.  iv.  p.  426.  In 
this  passage  Bossuet  speaks  of  toleration,  and  uses  the  French 
word  proper  to  express  it.  He  does  not  speak  of  it,  however,  in 
the  sense  in  which  it  is  understood  in  our  discussion.  He  speaks 
of  it  in  the  sense  in  which  truth  must  ever  be  intolerant.  The 
author  was  assigning  the  reasons  why  the  Catholic  Church  was 
so  much  hated  by  the  Protestant  denominations,  who  had  sepa- 
rated from  her.  He  says  that  at  the  beginning  they  only  desired 
that  the  church  would  abstain  from  condemning  their  doctrines. 
But  she  was  intolerant;  she  condemned  their  heresies,  and  would 
not  allow  their  authors  to  propagate  them  within  the  pale  of  her 
communion.  It  was  in  this  sense  that  she  would  not  tolerate 
thenij'just  as  the  Synod  of  York,  to  which  the  gentleman  has 


155 

ihonghl  proper  to  refer,  would  not  tolerate  the  Rev.  Albert 
Barnes.  And  with  equal  truth  may  it  be  said,  in  the  words  oi 
Bossuet,  that  the  "holy  severity  and  the  holy  delicacy"  of  the 
old  school  party  "  forbade  such  indulgence,  or  rather  such  soft- 
ness." The  Catholic  Church  could  not  admit  heresy  to  be  ortho- 
dox doctrine.  She  was  the  original  depository  of  the  truths  of 
revelation  ;  and  when  men  oppose  them,  she  brands  their  opinions, 
and  will  not  allow  truth  and  falsehood  to  coalesce  within  the  pale 
of  her  communion.  In  this  sense,  she  is  as  intolerant  as  truth. 
In  this  sense,  Protestant  denominations  may  be  more  tolerant^ 
because  their  doctrines  being  matter  of  opinion  all  round,  they  are 
in  perpetual  dispute  as  to  what  is  true,  and  ivhat  false.  But 
to  pervert  this  into  an  evidence  that,  according  to  Bossuet,  the 
Oatholic  religion  would  not  allow  '*  toleration^'  to  persons  sepa- 
rated from  her  communion,  is  one  of  those  bold  and  desperate 
attempts  to  deceive  the  public  which  merit  the  reprobation  of 
every  honest  man.  But  I  ascribe  it  to  the  gentleman's  imperfect 
knowledge  of  the  Fi-ench, 

The  Catholic  '*  marriage,"  as  a  civil  contract,  'is  every  thing 
that  the  laws  of  the  land  require.  As  a  religious  rite,  it  is  in 
harmony  with  the  gospel.     So  it  has  always  been. 

The  I3elgian  bishops  may  quote  canon  law  in  favour  of  intO" 
lerance,  yet  they,  with  one  exception  out  of  four,  voted  the  appro-^ 
priation  of  money  for  the  support  of  the  Protestant  ministers  and 
churches  ;  a  very  certain  proof  that  their  religion  does  not  make  in- 
tolerance an  article  of  faith.     Can  the  gentleman  show  a  parallel  ? 

In  my  last  speecli  I  exposed  the  case  of  the  Albigenses; — the 
nature  of  their  doctrine ;  their  crimes  against  church  and  state, 
and  human  nature  itself; — the  measures  that  were  then,  justly  or 
ofhenvise,  deemed  necessary  to  be  taken  against  them.  At  this 
day  there  is  no  state,  Catholic  or  Protestant,  that  would  not  sup- 
press them.  To  that  speech  I  refer  the  reader.  They  had  set 
public  authority  at  defiance,  by  their  violence,  and  public  autho- 
rity put  them  down  by  the  same  means.  The  gentleman  says  I 
only  wished  to  decoy  him  away  "  from  the  exposure  of  popery." 
I  know  he  is  abler  at  abusing  popery  than  at  discussing  points  of 
history,  and  therefore  I  give  him  credit  for  his  ingenuity.  He 
knows  his  forte.  According  to  his  view,  it  would  appear,  that 
the  Albigenses  had  only  to  profess  that  all  human  bodies  were 
the  creation  of  the  devil,  ancl  then,  under  the  protection  of  their 
iieresy,  commit  what  crimes  they  would.  He  wonders  that  I 
should  assert  the  infallibility  of  the  council,  in  condemning  the 
doctrine,  and  deny  that  infallibility  in  denouncing  the  persons,  of 
<.he  Albigenses.  This  puzzles  him.  "  What  a  strange  picture !" 
he  exclaims.  "  An  intermittent  infallibility !"  The  quack,  be- 
■cause  he  is  a  quack,  is  deceived  in  the  symptoms.  The  educated 
physician  knows  that  there  is  nothing  "  intermittent"  in  the  case. 
The  Council  of  Trent  decreed  that  the  ground  on  which  a  duel 


15G     , 

had  been  fought  should  be  forfeited.  None  but  a  quack  would 
look  for  "  infallibility"  in  any  suoli  decision.  So  it  was  with 
that  of  Lateran,  in  appointing  civil  penalties  against  the  Albi- 
genses.  It  depended  on  the  civil  government  in  which  they  lived, 
to  make  war  on  them,  or  not,  as  their  interests  might  direct.  It  is 
an  abuse  of  language — a  contempt  of  history — to  represent  the 
case  of  the  Albigenscs  as  a  persecuiion  for  tvorshippmg  God 
according  l.o  the  dieted es  of  their  conscience. 

The  gentleman,  unable  to  find,  anywhere,  persecution  recog- 
nised as  a  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Cliurch,  except  in  the  calum- 
nies of  her  enemies,  or  in  the  perversion  of  what  may  have  been 
said  by  her  friends,  as  Bossuet,  calls  on  me,  at  last,  to  show  a  con- 
demnation of  that  principle.  He  set  out  to  prove  the  charge; 
and  now  he  calls  on  me  to  prove  that  he  cannot  do  it.  I  am  pre- 
pared to  do  this;  but,  in  the  mean  time,  let  him  look  for  the  evi- 
dence, in  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church,  to  support  "the 
calumny  which  he  and  his  associates  in  the  anti-Catholic  crusade 
have  uttered.  Let  him  find  one  tenet  of  faith  and  morals  in  the 
whole  creed  of  the  Catholic  Church  which  is  opposed  to  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  ?..^  we  have  defined  tiiem.  Let  him  show  from 
any  bull  of  a  pope  or  decree  of  a  general  council  that  any  such 
tenet  has  been  proposed  to  the  belief  of  Catholics,  and  then  he 
will  prove  his  proposition — not  before.  But  if  he  cannot  do  this, 
let  him  retire  with  that  portion  of  shame  which  ought,  to  cling  to 
tho3e  who  bear  "  false  witness  against  their  neighbours." 

He  may  prove  that  Catholics  persecuted.  This  is  not  the  ques- 
tion. Did  they  persecute  in  ol)edience  to  any  tenet  of  doctrine 
held  by  their  Church  ?  If  they  did,  let  the  gentleman  point  out  that 
doctrine  which  required  them  to  persecute.  He  refers  to  the  27th 
canon  of  the  Third  Lateran,  in  the  quotation  which  I  convicted  him, 
and  Mr.  Faber  by  his  testimony,  of  garbling  to  make  out  their 
cause.  He  makes  a  jest  of  the  circumstance.  In  his  mind,  gar- 
bling and  exposure  for  it,  are  not  associated  with  dishonour.  He 
has  neither  the  courage  to  deny  the  fact,  nor  the  humility  to  ex- 
plain how  it  happened.  .He  says,  that  canon  "  dooms  its  victims 
to  slavery."  The  words  of  the  council  refute  him.  After  enu- 
merating their  crimes,  it  simply  states,  "liberum  sit  principibus 
hujusmodi  homines  subjicere  servituti," — ""let  it  be  permitted,  or 
firee,  for  princes  to  reduce  such  men  to  slavery.''^  Will  he  say 
that  to  "  doom  them  to  slavery,"  and  to  '■''leave  it  free  for  princes 
to  reduce  them  to  slavery,"  is  the  same  thing.  If  not,  the  gentle- 
man is  convicted  of  another  inetance  of  false  testimony.  He  asks, 
was  the  canon  ever  repealed?  I  answer,  that  it  became  extinct, 
when  the  Albigenses  ceased  from  their  warfare  on  "virgins  and 
WIDOWS,  OLD  AND  YOUNG,  scx  and  agc,  and  their  destruction  and 
desolation  of  every  thing  after  the  manner  of  pagans,^'  as  the 
canon  asserts;  and  as  Mr.  Faber  and  the  gendeman  thought 
proper  not  to  assert,  whilst  they  professed  to  give  the  canon.     It 


157 

became  extinct  then — or  else  M-heii  princes  had  reduced  " such 
men"  to  slavery.  And  being  extinct,  it  was  not  susceptible  of 
repeal. 

I  stated,  that  the  object  for  which  the  Lateran  Council  was 
"especially"  convened,  was  the  condemnation  of  the  Albigensiaii 
heresy.  And  because  they  condemned  other  heresies,  he  affects 
to  discover  contradiction.  They  defined  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation,  and  the  gentleman  hints,  that  in  this,  they  had  a 
prophetic  reference  to  the  Protestants,  who  were  to  come  into 
being  some  three  hundred  years  afterwards.  They  even  excom- 
municated, and  anathematized  every  heresy,  extolling  itself  against 
this  holy,  orthodox  faith  which  they  had  before  expounded..  And 
the  gentleman  thiliks,  after  all  this  trouble,  it  is  hard  that  the 
Protestants  should  not  be  included  in  the  canon  against  the  Albi- 
gensss.  But  he  cannot  be  gratified.  He  is  puzzled  equally  to 
account  for  the  fact,  that  the  Albigenses  had  been  so  long  borne 
within  the  midst  of  Catholic  Europe.  And  he  accounts  for  it,  by 
saying,  that  "as  soon  as  they  dared,  the  popes  and  councils  did 
begin  their  persecution."  One  would  suppose  that  they  might 
have  "dared,"  lohen  the  Mbigeyises  werefeiv,  instead  of  waiting 
till  they  perpetrated  such  outrages.  Besides,  there  never  was  a 
period  when  popes  did  not  "  dare"  to  proclaim  and  practise  every 
article  of  Catholic  faith.  Of  the  ch^iracter  and  doctrines  of  the 
Albigenses,  I  said  only  what  cotemporary  writers  mention;  and  if 
the  gentleman  can  refute  my  authorities,  I  beg  him  not  to  with- 
hold his  knowledge,  until  the  last  night  of  the  discussion.  It  is 
possible,  that  my  corrected  speech  has  been  sent  to  college^  and 
if  so,  we  all  understand  why  the  answer  to  it  has  been  postponed 
for  the  present.  The  assertion,  that  Dupin  was  a  Catholic,  is  not 
to  be  depended  on.  His  private  correspondence  with  Archbishop 
Wake  of  Canterbury,  proves  that  he  was  quite  ready  to  be  a  Pro- 
testant. 

As  to  the  section  of  the  canon,  which  I  said  was  spurious,  the 
gentleman  cannot  involve  me  in  a  contradiction,  except  at  the 
sacrifice  of  truth,  about  which  (to  return  his  expression  of  "  re- 
gret") I  am.  sorry,  that  he  seems  to  entertain  but  little  scruple. 
I  did  say,  "  this  canon,"  when,  in  strict,  hair-splitting  accuracy , 
I  should  have  said,  "this  section  of  the  canon."  This  I  did  in 
my  subsequent  speech ;  and  because  I  did  so,  he  charges  me  as 
having  intended  to  designate  under  the  words,  "  this  canon,"  the 
whole  five  sections,  considered  as  different  sections,  as  being 
spurious.  It  is  in  this,  that  he  sacrifices  truth.  I  have  a  right, 
at  least,  to  know  my  own  meaning. 

It  is,  however,  of  no  importance  in  which  section  of  the  canon 
"  THE  exterminating  clause"  may  be  found.  The  gentleman 
would  have  found  it  equally  in  the  second,  if  I  had  said  it  was 
in  the  third,  and  not  in  the  second. 

He  does  not  yet  answer  my  question  about  the  Mazarine  copy. 


158 

Neither  did  I  do  injustice  to  his  citation  of.the  marginal  note.  He 
now  admits,  that  the  section  referred  to,  was  wanting  in  both  lan- 
guages of  that  manuscript.  Yet  liis  former  assertion  was,  that 
Labbe  followed  the  Latin;  and  the  insinuation,  that  the  leaf  had 
been  torn  out,  proves  his  meaning.  Now,  he  settles  the  matter, 
*'  of  course,"  "  As  the  leaf  was  wanting  in  the  Mazarine  manu- 
script, of  course,  all  it  contained  was  wanting."  What  next? 
**  And  yet  the  gentleman  would  make  me  say,  that  though  the 
leaf  was  wanting,  yet  half  the  leaf  was  not  wanting."  No.  I  did 
not  make  him  say  any  such  thing.  But  since  Labbe  states,  that 
both  languages  are  wanting  in  the  Mazarine  copy,  I  wish  to 
know  how  Labbe  could  follow  the  Latin  of  that  copy,  as  the 
gentleman  asserted?  If  we  believe  the  gentleman,  Labbe  followed 
the  text,  which  Labbe  himself  says,  did  not  exist.  The  difficulty 
remains;  and  the  gentleman,  instead  of  agitating  the  "  leaf,"  will 
do  well  to  meet  it  fairly. 

Let  me  humour  the  gentleman  in  regard  to  Collier.     That  his-' 
torian  does  not  "  5«y,"  that  this  section  is  spurious;    he  only  re-  • 
jects  it  for  want  of  evidence  to  prove,  that  it  was  the  authentic  act 
of  the  council.    This  is  all  I  want.    Now,  if  it  was  not  the  authen- 
tic act,  was  it  not,  ipso  confesso,  spurious  ? 

As  to  Dupin  and  Matthew  Paris,  I  proved,  in  my  last  speech, 
that  even  by  the  use  made  of  them  by  the  gentleman,  they  sustain 
all  I  said  on  their  authority.  Dupin  gave  the  Pope  himself  credit 
for  making  the  whole  seventy  canons  ;  and  M.  Paris  says,  they  . 
were  "  read,"  and,  as  the  gentleman  affirms,  "  the  council  mur- 
mured OVER  THEM."  This  is  the  gentleman's  own  admission. 
But  to  make  them  "  the  genuine  acts  of  the  council,"  they  should 
have  been  submitted  for  deliberation — they  should  have  been  aj)- 
proved — they  should  have  been  adopted.  So  far  from  this,  on 
hearing  them  "  read,"  "  the  council  murmured  over  them  ;"  and 
therefore,  says  Mr.  Breckinridge,  they  are  t?ie  genuine  acts  of  the 
council;  and,  because  they  "murmured  over  them,"  they  were 
"  bloody  butchers."  The  gentleman's  intellects  must  be  be- 
wildered, or  he  would  not  refute  himself  so  palpably.  Having 
granted  me  all  that  I  contended  for,  and  more  than  was  sufficient 
to  sustain  my  position,  he  says  he  "blushes  for  having  had. to 
expose  them."  He  exposed  himself,  and  his  "  blushes"  become 
him. 

My  reference  to  the  decision  of  the  universities  on  the  question  in 
debate,  was  for  those  who  wish  to  know  the  truth,  and  gain  cor- 
rect information.  As  its  citation  was  more  than  my  argument  re- 
quired, I  have  postponed  it  for  the  present.  But  I  may  give  it 
entire  hereafter. 

The  document  which  I  am  bound  to  admit  as  evidence  of 
Catholic  doctrine,  is  the  decree  of  a  General  Council,  or  the  bull  of 
a  Pope — setting  it  forth  as  a  "  tenet  of  faith  or  morals  revealed  by 
Almighty  God."     Unless  it  come  undei  this  definition,  it  if;  not  a 


159. 

doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  religion ;  and  unless  it  be  a  docr 
trine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  /  am  not  bound  to  defend 
it.  Catholics  are  to  be  judged  by  their  doctrines — in  which  they 
all  agiee;  and  not  by  the  opinions  of  individuals — which  must  be 
different  and  contradictory,  according  to  the  age^  the  country^  the 
government,  (fee,  in  which  they  lived.  The  '*  learned  Dens"  is 
one  of  these  writers.  And  when  the  gentleman  asks  "  who  is 
right?  Mr.  Hughes,  or  the  learned  Dens,  I  answer,  that,  as  re- 
gards persecution,  Mr.  Hughes  is  right  in  condemning,  and  Mr. 
Dens  Was  wrong  in  approving  it.  I  answer,  secondly,  that,  as  re- 
gards the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  religion,  there  is  no  disagree- 
ment between  Mr.  Hughes  and  the  "  learned  Dens."  Both  are 
agreed — and  both  are  right.  Has  the  gentleman  ever  seen  Dens's 
Theology  I  '  I  imagine  not.  But  the  tories  in  England,  the  men 
who  will  not  allow  Presbyterians  to  receive  the  honours  of  the 
UNIVERSITIES,  foundcd  and  endowed  by  Catholics :  these  men,  in 
order  to  check  the  progress  of  free  principles  and  popular  rights, 
have  returned  to  the  stale  expedient  of  crying  "  no  popery." 
The  chorus  had  died  away  for  some  years,  and,  in  order  to  renew 
it,  there  was  a  congregation  of  the  "  Fudge  Family"  at  Exeter  Hall 
— headed  by  Murtagh  O' Sullivan,  and  Patrick  Maghee,  dee,  dee, 
— appropriate  instruments  to  do  the  dirty  work  of  political  bigotry, 
by  the  excitation  of  religious  hatred.  These  men  made  speeches 
on  the  subject  of  Dens's  Theology,  and  to  those  speeches  the  gen- 
tleman appears  to  be  indebted  for  all  he  knows  of  that  work.  He 
says  it  was  approved  of  by  the  Irish  bishops.  It  may  have  been 
so,  so  far  as  it  treats  of  those  "tenets  of  faith  and  morals  which 
the  Catholic  Church  holds  as  having  been  revealed  by  Almighty 
God;"  i.  e.,  so  far  as  Catholic  doctrine  is  concerned.  That  the 
opinions  of  the  author,  in  support  of  persecution,  were  approved  of 
by  them  is  utterly  false.  For  three  hundred  years,  the  Irish 
Catholics  have  been  the  victims  of  Protestant  persecution ;  and 
neither  they,  nor  their  bishops,  would,  or  oould,  or  did  approve  of 
the  sophistry  by  which  Dens  would  recommend  the  cursed  prin- 
ciple. The.  whole  matter  was  this: — a  bookseller  had  published 
it  as  a  matter  of  pecuniary  speculation ;  he  laboured  to  make 
money  by  it ;  and  the  bishops  made  it  the  rule,  not  for  the  de- 
cision, but  for  the  order  of  such  subjects  as  the  clergy  had  to  dis- 
cuss in  their  conferences.  The  gentleman  came  here  to  show 
"  those  tenets  of  faith  and  morals  held  by  Catholics"  which  are 
opposed  to  "  civil  and  religious  liberty;"  and  to  prove  the  exist- 
ence of  such  tenets  by  the  "  bull  of  a  Pope,  or  the  decree  of  a  General 
Council."  This  he  cannot  do.  But  he  quotes  a  canon  of  a  Ge- 
neral Council  in  which  no  doctrine  is  proposed,  but  in  which  per- 
mission is  given,  encouragement  is  held  forth,  to  the  governments 
in  which  the  Albigenses  existed,  to  drive  them  from  their  territo- 
ries respectively ;  not  as  persons  simply  exercising  the  rights  of 
conscience,  but  as  public  enemies,  who,  by  their  excesses  agamst 


160 

the  right  of  others,  had  forfeited  every  claim  to  have  their  own 
respected.  He  has  quoted  the  supposed  opinions  of  Dens  ;  and 
the  spouters  at  Exeter  Hall  are  his  witnesses  even  for  their  exist- 
ence. And  his  reasoning  is,  that  since  Dens  held  those  opinions 
— therefore  they  are  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  are 
binding  on  all  Catholics  ;  for  it  is  their  boast  that  their  doctrines 
never  change  ! !  The  premises  are  false,  and  the  conclusion  is  ab- 
surd. The  gentleman,  in  quoting  Dens,  Bossuet,  the  Rhemish 
annotators,  admits  that  they  only  give  their  opmions.  But,  he 
says,  *'  are  not  their  opinions  as  good  as  that  of  Mr.  Hughes  ? 
Is  Mr,  Hughes  wiser  than  all  these  ?  The  answer  is  very  simple. 
He  that  runs  may  read.  They  lived  in"  Rome,  France,  Belgium, 
and  Ireland.  He  lives  in  the  United  States."  I  thank  him  for 
the  admission.  Then  he  acknowledges,  that,  in  accusing  the 
Catholics  of  the  United  Slates  of  holding  the  same  opinions  which 
have  been  put  forth  by  writers  in  Rome,  France,  Belgium,  and  Ire- 
land, he,  and  his  colleagues,  have  been  bearing  "  false  witness 
against  their  neighbour."  He  acknowledges  that  Mr.  Hughes  can 
be  a  Catholic  in  the  United  States,  without  holding  the  ojnnions 
of  Mr.  Dens.  In  other  words,  he  acknowledges  that  the  anti- 
Catholic  crusaders,  with  whom  he  is  associated, ^rs/  calumniate 
the  Catholics,  by  charging  on  them  tenets  which  they  do  not  hold  ; 
and  then  denounce  them  for  doctrines  which  they  disclaim,  at 
least  in  "  the  United  States."  I  thank  him  for  his  candour,  though 
I  do  not  believe  it  was  intentional. 

•  Let  the  gentleman  show  me  one  of  those  writers  teaching  per- 
secution as  a  Catholic  teiiet  of  faith  or  morals.  Now,  Mr. 
Hughes  states,  that  it  is  not  a  doctrine.  By  \yhat  Catholic 
writer,  then,  has  Mr.  Hughes  been  contradicted?  By  Bossuet? 
No.  By  Dens?  No.  By  the  Pope?  No.  By  the  Rhemish 
annotators?  No.  Not  one  of  them  has  ever  said,  ih^i persecu- 
tion IS  a  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church!  But  they  advocated 
the  principle.  If  they  did,  it  was  in  their  own  name,  and  on 
their  own  authority;  not  by  any  requisition  of  their  religion,  as 
Catholics.  If  it  were  a  doctrine,  Mr.  Hughes  dare  not  deny  it 
in  the  name  of  his  Church.  Sueh  a  denial  would  be  heresy,  and 
would  entitle  him  to  a  seat  in  the  Synod  of  York.  If  it  were  a  doc- 
trine, the  Catholic  wife  would  have  to  make  an  act  of  contrition 
every  evening,  for  not  having  poisoned  her  heretical  husband, 
during  the  day;  and  those  Catholics  in  France  and  other  coun- 
tries, where  they  arc  able  to  do  it,  would  be  living  in  a  perpetual 
state  of  mortal  sin,  so  long  as  they  abstained  from  killing  their 
Protestant  neighbours.  In  a  word,  the  doctrine  would  lead  to 
the  same  consequences  among  Catholics,  which  it  produced 
among -Presbyterians ;  and  like  them,  we  too  should  be  asking 
God's  pardon  for  the  sin  of  tolerating  a  false  religion. 

The  gentleman  has  taken  suspicious  pains  to  make  it  appear, 
that  the  bull  In  Coena  Domini  rests  on  "  accumulative  and  infalli- 


161 

ble  authority."  A  few  facts  will  suffice  to  prove  the  contrary.  In 
1510  the  Provincial  Council  of  Tours  rejected  this  bull  in  the 
name  of  the  French  nation.  (1)  And  in  1773,  Pope  Clement  XIV. 
suspended  the  publication  of  it.  (2)  It  is  still  read,  however,  in 
Rome  every  Thursday  in  holy  week,  as  it  had  been  long  before 
the  reformation,  so  called.  Out  of  one  single  church  in  Rome,  it 
has  not  been  read  for  more  than  sixty  years.  Since,  therefore,  it 
has  been  rejected  by  Catholics,  it  follows,  that  its  rejection  was 
not  inconsistent  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  religion.  And 
since  it  has  been  suspended  by. the  Pope  himself,  it  follows  that, 
if  it  ever  had  any  authority,  it  has  none  now.  It  is  another  in- 
stance to  show  on  what  grounds  the  calumniators  of  the  Catholics 
are  obliged  to  build. 

That  Pope  Paul  should  excommunicate  the  heretics  and  here- 
sies, that  were  just  springing  into  being,  during  his  pontificate, 
1536,  is  nothing  wonderful.  The  Synod  of  York,  for  a  mere 
difference  of  opinion,  suspended  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes  in  1835. 
And  the  gentleman  himself  instigated  the  General  Assembly  at 
Pittsburg  to  excommunicate  the  "whole  Catholic  Church,"  which 
they  did  accordingly.  The  "  bishops,"  at  his  instance,  con- 
structed an  artificial  Vatican  in  the  western  city,  and  with  artificial 
thunder,  that  reverberated  along  the  surrounding  hills  and  valleys, 
for  a  considerable  distance,  cut  ofl'  from  the  communion  of  the 
"  Christian  Church"  nearly  two  hundred  millions  of  as  good 
Christians  as  themselves.  Had  not  the  Pope,  in  1536,  as  good  a 
right  to  excommunicate  the  Calvinists,  as  the  General  Assembly, 
in  1835,  had  to  excommunicate  the  whole  Catholic  world  of  pre- 
sent and  past  generations  ? 

After  enumerating,  with  double  emphasis  on  the  word  curses^ 
of  which  I  shall  speak  presently,  all  the  clauses  which  he  deems 
most  suited  to  his  purpose  in  the  bull  In  Coena  Domini,  he  is 
forced  to  admit  that  "  some''  are  good.  But  most  of  them  had 
reference  to  times,  and  custom  and  laws,  with  which  we  are  alto- 
gether unacquainted.  The  world  has  changed,  and  it  is  probable 
that,  at  the  period  of  their  promulgation,  tliese  clauses  were  not 
at  variance  with  the  civil  laws  of  any  country,  that  could  be  af- 
fected by  them.  But,  at  all  events,  the  document  is,  in  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  of  no  kind  of  authority ;  the  state  of  things,  in  which 
it  might  be  even  tolerable,  having  passed  away  from  every  civil- 
ized nation.  Catholic  as  well  as  Protestant,  in  the  world. 

Making  allowance  for  the  age  in  which  they  were  passed — let 
us  see,  after  all,  whether  those  clauses  are  so  full  of  mischief.  I 
shall  just  follow  the  gentleman,  and  we  shall  see. 

The  1st  section  denounces  heretics;  and  it  is  not  for  a  member 
of  the  Synod  of  York  to  find  fault  with  this. 

( 1 )  Bergier,  vol.  i.  p.  475. 

(2)  Ibid. 

21 


162 

The  2d  sectioia  denounces  those  who,  to  gain  time  for  the  pro- 
pagation of  heresy^  or  schism,  or  any  thing  else  that  might  injure 
religion,  appeal  to  a  future  general  conneil.  Does  the  gentleiaan, 
liimself  an  enemy  to  heresy,  find  fault  with  this  ? 

The  3d  section  denounces  all  "  pirates."     Was  this  wrong? 

The  4th  section  denounces  all  "  wreckers ;"  and  pray  was  it 
wrong  for  the  Pope  to  come  with  all  the  influence  of  his  authority 
to  the  aid  of  the  shipwrecked  mariner,  on  whatever  coast  he  might 
be  cast? 

The  5th  section  denounces  the  authors  of  oppression  by  the  ille- 
gal imposition  of  taxes.     Was  this  very  inhuman? 

The  7th  section  denounces  those  who  assisted  the  Saracens  in 
their  wars  against  the  Christians.  Was  there  any  thing  so  very 
bad  in  this?  The  gentleman  makes  it  put  the  Hussites,  Lutherans, 
Calvinists,  &;c.,  in  the  same  predicament  as  the  Saracens.  This 
part  of  the  bull,  however,  had  existed  a  few  hundred  years  before 
there  were  any  Calvinists. 

The  8th  section  denounces  those  who  should  appeal  to  secular 
tribunals,  in  spiritual  matters.  Was  this  a  great  crime  ?  especially 
as  the  time  had  not  yet  come,  when,  as  the  Presbyteiian  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  has  it,  the  '*  magistrate  had  to  provide,  that  what- 
ever is  done  in  Synods,  be  according  to  the  mind  of  Qod^ 

The  14th  section  denounces  those  who  should  take  the  cogni- 
zance of  ecclesiastical  affairs  from  ecclesiastical  judges,  to  whom 
it  belonged  by  the  laws  of  the  state,  as  then  existing.  Was 
this  so  very  unnatural? 

The  15th  section  denounces  those  who  should  invade  the  per- 
sonal immunities  of  the  clergy,  as  then  recognised,  both  by  canon 
and  civil  law.     Is  there  any  thing  so  shocking  in  this  ? 

The  18th  section  denounces  the  invaders  of  their  immuniiies 
in  property,  as  equally  secured  by  general  laws. 

The  20th  section  denounces  those  who  should  invade  the  papal 
states. 

The  21st  section  directs,  that  these  acts  shall  not  be  recalled, 
except  by  the  Pope.  And  the  Pope  has  recalled  them ;  and  with 
this  item  of  additional  information,  I  hope  the  genUeman  will 
sleep  sound,  and  not  be  disturbed  by  any  apprehensions  of  the 
bull  ♦'  In  Coena  Domini." 

In  following  him,  I  have  used  the  word  '*  denounced,"  while 
he  uses  the  word  *'  curses."  This  suits  his  purpose  better,  be- 
cause it  conveys  the  idea  imprecation.  As  a  Greek  scholar,  he 
unust  know,  that  the  intrinsic  force  of  the  word  "  anathema"  is 
not  "  imprecation  ;"  and,  as  an  ecclesiasw;  scholar,  he  ought  to 
know,  that  in  ecclesiastical  usage,  it  has  not  lUat  meaning. 

But  it  follows,  on  the  gentleman's  view  of  th«  case,  that  the 
Pope  was  not,  even  in  the  middle  ages,  that  omnipotent  monarch, 
who,  by  the  frown  of  his  brow,  could  lay  nations  prostrate  in  the 


163 

dast,  tliiat  lie  might  trample  on  them.  On  the  contrary,  he  l<ia<i 
no  means,  it  appears,  to  defend  his  own  immunities  and  those  of 
the  Church,  but  anathemas,  or,  as  the  gentleman  will  have  it, 
*•*  curses."  Which  shall  we  believe?  Again;  since  the  Presby- 
terians hold,  that  the  Pope  is  anti-Christ,  they  ought  to  rejoice, 
that  he  has  excommunicated  them ;  and  be  satisfied,  that  the 
*♦  curses"  of  anti-Christ  will  only  help  them  on  their  way  to 
heaven. 

The  gentleman  misrepresents  me,  when  he  says,  I  wish  to 
fasten  the  "  abolition  odium"  on  Presbyterians.  His  «wn  ex- 
pose of  Presbyterian  doctrine,  setting  forth  that  on  the  "  subject 
of  liberty,  there  is  no  discretion,"  is  the  only  thing,  in  this  discus- 
sion, that  can  fix  that  odium.  According  to  his  own  statement  of 
the  doctrine,  it  follows,  as  a  consequence,  that  both  slave  and 
master  are  involved  in  guilt;  since  there  is  "  no  discretion  on  the 
subject  of  liberty."  The  uncalled  for  disclaimer  of  the  Synod  of 
York  will  not  remove  the  "  odium,"  which  I  have  no  wish  to 
fasten. 

Of  Garrison's  writings  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  I  have  never 
read  a  line  ;  and  Daniel  O'Connell  goes  out  of  his  sphere,  as  I 
conceive,  whenever  he  touches  on  the  subject.  Froai  all  I  have 
seen  of  his  writings,  he  seems  to  be,  on  this  point,  an  orthodox 
Presbyterian,  believing  in  the  gentleman's  own  words,  that  where 
liberty  is  concerned,  God  has  left  '*  no  discretion." 

The  effort,  the  last  struggle  of  the  gentleman's  argument,  shows 
the  desperate  condition  to  which  he  is  reduced.  I  explained,  in 
my  last  speech,  the  meaning  of  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  Still, 
he  contends,  that  if  not  by  "  doctrine,"  at  least  by  -^'  discipline," 
all  Catholics  are  bound  to  kill  and  exterminate  heretics  wherever 
they  meet  them.  Poor  man !  To  this,  (for  it  amounts  to  this  by 
his  construction^)  he  says,  *'  Mr.  Hughes  is  bound  this  night  by 
a  SOLEMN  OATH,  uncl  DENIES  IT  ut  the  visJc  of  papal  displeasure  J*"* 
The  Catholics,  throughout  the  world, -the  gentleman  has  told  you, 
amount  to  120,000,000;  and  the  Pope  would  be  quite  angry,  if 
they  did  not  subscribe  the  creed  af  Ptus  IV.,  just  for  the  pleasure 
of  committing  perjury  by  living  in  the  perpetual  violation  of  its 
doctrine  and  discipline.  He  will  be  equally  displeased,  if,  after 
having  sioorn  to  it,  they  do  not  commit  apostacy,  as  well  as 
perjury,  by  denying  It,  as  "  Mr.  Hughes  does  this  night." 

-I  say  nothing  of  his  charging  me  with  perjury.  Coming  from 
any  other,  I  should  resent  it  as  an  insult — but  from  him,  it  is 
precisely  what  I  expected — I  know  him  to  be  capable  of  it.  When 
the  gentleman  has  so  farfoigotten  himself  as  to  use  such  language, 
to  an  opponent  .whom  he  himself  selected,  he  authorizes  that  op- 
ponent to  consider  him  as  having  forfeited  that  moral  attribute 
which  is  essentially  connected  with  even  the  power  to  insult.  I, 
therefore,  present  him  with  carte  blanche.     But  the  fact  of  his 


164 

having  used  such  language,  will  explain,  more  clearly  still,  my 
motive  for  shrinking  from  any  *'oral  discussion"  with  a  gentle- 
man, whom  I  judged  so  well  to  be  capable  of  using  it. 

He  admits  that  the  notes  on  the  Rhemish  Testament  are  only 
the  opinions  of  "  very  learned  papists" — but  he  asks  whether  the 
"pope  ever  condemned  ihem ?"  I  really  cannot  answer  the 
question,  as  I  am  uncertain  whether  the  pope  ever  saw  them.  It 
would  keep  the  pope  too  busy  to  read  all  the  "opinions"  that 
may  be  uttered  and  published  by  120,000,000  of  men.  The  book 
in  which  he  \vould  record  the  "opinions"  that  he  approved;  and 
the  other  book  in  which  he  would  record  the  "  opinions"  that  he 
condemned,  would  be  too  large  and  unwieldy.  And  if  he  were 
to  do  so,  the  gentleman  would  be  among  the  first  to  accuse  him  of 
tyrannizing  over,  not  only  the  "doctrines  of  the  church,"  but  the 
"opinions"  of  men.  He  must  underrate  the  common  sense  of 
the  audience  and  the  public,  when  he  asks  such  questions. 

He  has  found  out  that  ^^indulgences  takeaway  the  punishment 
(in  this  world  and  in  purgatory)  due  for  sins,  they  are  to  be 
granted  for  reasonable  causes,  out  of  the  superabundant  merits 
of  Christ  and  his  saints.'^  This  he  has  discovered  in  the 
Council  of  Trent,  I  am  glad  that  he  has  lived  long  enough  to 
prove,  with  his  own  pen,  that  when,  in  the  recent  controversy,  he 
stated  that  "  indulgences  were  a  bundle  of  licences  to 
COMMIT  sin,"  he  was  deceiving  the  public  by  his  testimony.  He 
finds  now  that  they  are  not  licences  to  commit  sin,  but  simply 
the  "  taking  away  of  temporal punisliTnent  due  for  sins"  committed. 
He  finds  that  they  must  be  granted  for  "just  causes." 

And  now,  for  the  use  he  makes  of  this  discovery.  Inasmuch 
as  indulgences  were  offered  to  those  who  should  aid  in  suppress- 
ing the  Albigenses,  he  infers  that  the  third  canon  of  the  Fourth 
Council  of  Lateran  rested  on  the  "doctrine  of  indulgences."  This 
is  his  last  resource  for  a  doctrine  to  support  it.  Well,  let  us  see 
how  his  argument  will  stand.  ^^Indulgences  are  the  taking 
away  of  temporal  punishment  due  for  sins,  and  m,ust  be  granted 
for  reasonable  causes.^''  Therefore,  Catholics  hold  the  third 
canon  of  the  Fourth  Council  of  Lateran  as  a  tenet  revealed  by 
Almighty  God.  This  logic  will  not  do.  But  then,  the  suppression 
of  the  Albigenses,  provided  for  in  the  canon,  was  deemed  a  suffi- 
cient, "reasonable  cause,"  for  granting  indulgences  —  therefore 
the  canon,  going  before,  was  founded  on  the  indulgences  that 
were  to  come  after.  This  will  not  do  either.  If,  as  historians 
write,  the  Albigenses  were  the  destroyers  of  churches  and  monas- 
ieries — persons  "  who  spared  neither  sex  nor  age,  neither 
VIRGINS  nor  widows;"  those  who  risked  their  lives  in  defence  of 
these,  might  be  considered  as  furnishing  "  reasonable  cause  "  for 
the  application  of  indulgences.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Albi- 
genses were  those  innocent  lambs  which  the  gentleman  has  pro- 


165 

mised  to  make  them  appear — then,  it  was  an  abuse  of  the  doctrine 
to  grant  or  promise  an  indulgence  for  their  immolation.  But  in 
neither  case  can  the  doctrine  be  brought  to  sustain  the  canon. 

The  gentleman,  copying  after  Faber,  suppressed  the  middle  of 
the  twenty-seventh  canon  of  the  Third  Lateran,  and  brought  the 
other  portions  together,  as  if  nothing  had  been  omitted.  This 
he  calls  "abridging."  In  speaking  of  it,  I  gave  him  the  merit  of 
a  copyist,  and  on  that  ground  excused  him  of  *'  fraud," — but  not  of 
culpable  ignorance—considering  his  office.  Rather  than  acknow- 
ledge that  he  had  been  deceived  by  copying,  he  stated  that,  ^^  Fa- 
ber had  quoted  it  as  he  had.""  On  which  I  hinted  to  him  that 
he  seemed  to  be  ambitious  of  a  partnership  in  the  "  fraud"  with 
which  Faber  is  chaigeable — for  in  him  it  could  not  have  been 
ig'norance. 

The  gentleman  enumerates  the  efforts  by  which  he  endeavoured 
to  engage  me  in  controversy ;  to  all  of  which  the  same  monotonous 
result  is  ascribed.  "  He  declined.  He  declined.  He  declined." 
I  am  not  sorry  that  he  should  boast,  except  always  where  he 
goes  beyond  the  facts.  For,  whilst  it  pleads  my  apology  for  the 
freedom  with  which  I  shall  have  to  speak  of  Presbyterian  doc- 
trines ;  it  will  show,  on  the  other  hand,  his  want  of  title  to  that 
sympathy  which  he  would  otherwise  claim  for  his  suffering  "in 
the  great  cause,"  if  I  should  make  a  whip  of  his  ecclesiastical 
ignorance,  to  chastise  his  anti-popery  zeal  withal.  One  thing  I 
promise,  however,  that  the  gentleman  himself,  personally,  shall  but 
seldom  engage  my  attention.  As  a  gentleman  he  has  entitled  him- 
self to  impunity. 

Finally,  he  asks  me  m,y  opinion  about  the  right  of  "the  ma- 
jority IN  Spain,  or  Italy,  to  establish  the  Catholic  religion 
BY  LAW."  I  answer  that,  in  m,y  opinion,  if  the  majority  in  Italy 
and  Spain,  by  doing  so,  violated  no  civil  or  religious  right  of  the 
minority,  they  had,  in  that  case,  the  right  to  "  establish  the 
Catholic  religion  by  law."  But  if,  in  order  to  establish  it,  they 
violated  any  right,  sacred  or  civil,  of  the  minority,  then,  in  that 
case,  they  had  no  right  to  "  establish  the  Catholic  religion  bylaw." 
They  had  no  right  to  do  evil,  that  good  might  come. 

And  now,  having  answered  his  question,  I  ask  in  turn,  whe- 
ther his  religious  forefathers,  in  Scotland,  whilst  yet  a 
minority,  are  to  be  blamed  for  pulling  altars,  images,  and 
other  monuments  of  idolatry,  from  places  of  public  worship 
AT  THE  Reformation?     "  We  now  expect  an  answer." 

The  gentleman  has  quoted  some  of  the  doctrines  of  John  Huss, 
and  especially  on  the  subject  of  handing  heretics  over  to  the  civil 
arm  for  corporal  punishment.  It  is  a  little  unfortunate  for  his 
argument,  however,  that  Huss  himself  was  an  advocate  for  the 
corporal  punishment  of  heretics ;  and  this  too,  whilst  he  himself 
was  under  the  imputation  of  heresy.     Connected  with  the  case  of 


166 

Huss,  is  the  supposed  evidence  on  which  Mr.  Wesley  constructed 
his  famous  syllogism,  to  prove  that  Catholics  ought  not  to  be 
tolerated  among  even  "  Turks  or  Pagans."  The  Rev.  Mr.  Night- 
ingale, a  Protestant  clergyman,  says,  that  Mr.  Wesley  wrote  under 
♦*a  mistaken  impression;"  and  that  if  he  were  living  *^ at  this 
fmc,"  he  would  use  his  talents  and  influence  in  favour  of  "  the 
cause  of  liberty  and  justice,"  that  "no  man  was  ever  more  ready 
to  acknowledge  an  error,  of  which  he  was  once  convinced,  than 
was  Mr.  Wesley."  I  subscribe  freely  to  these  observations  in  fa- 
vour of  Mr.  Wesley's  sincerity  and  candour — at  the  same  time  I 
shall  proceed  to  show  that  he  was  under  a  "mistaken  im- 
pression," 

His  argument,  in  his  letter  of  January  12,  1780,  proclaims  it  as 
a  "  Roman  Catholic  maxim,  established  not  by  private  men,  but 
by  a  public  council,  that  *  no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with  heretics.^ 
This  has  been  openly  avowed  by  the  Council  of  Constance,  but  it 
has  never  been  openly  disclaimed Therefore  they  (Catho- 
lics) ought  not  to  be  tolerated  by  any  government,  Protestant, 
Mahometan,  or  Pagan.^^  The  whole  of  this  argument  depends 
on  the  fact,  whether  or  not  the  Council  of  Constance  "  publicly 
avowed  the  maxim"  ascribed  to  it  by  Mr.  Wesley.  If  it  did  not, 
then  it  was  impossible  to  "  recalV^  what  it  had  never  published. 
If  it  did  NOT — then,  under  a  "  mistaken  impression,"  AVesley,  too, 
has  borne  "  false  witness  against  his  neighbour." 

Mr.  Wesley  is  dead — but  Mr.  Breckinridge  has  adopted  his  as- 
sertion ;  and  I  call  on  Mr.  Breckinrigide,  here  present,  to  show,  in 
the  acts  of  the  Council  of  Constance,  now  open  before  us  on  the 
table,  the  "  maxim  avowed  '  that  no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with  here- 
tics.' "  If  Ae  cannot,  I  call  on  him,  as  he  professes  to  hate  a 
falsehood,  to  aid  me  in  denouncing  the  calumny.  There  is  no 
retreat.  He  shall  not  have  the  plea,  in  his  biography,  that  he 
wrote  under  "  a  mistaken  impression."  Here  are  the  original 
documents. 

A  few  words  will  be  sufficient  to  explain  the  supposed  founda- 
tion of  this  cruel  slander.  In  the  nineteenth  session  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constance,  it  is  laid  down,  that  the  spiritual  authority  of  the 
church,  being  of  Divine  origin,  cannot  be  impeded,  or  hindered, 
by  any  safe  conduct  of  any  prince,  emperor,  king,  or  secular 
power  whatever,  from  the  just  exercise  of  its  function,  in  coii- 
demning  the  errors  of  those  who  are  subject  to  its  jurisdiction. 
It  asserted  the  right  of  the  church  to  judge  of  heresies  or  errors 
that  might  corrupt  the  purity  of  the  faith,  in  despite  of  all  the  safe 
conducts  that  might  be  given  by  all  the  princes  in  the  world.  It 
asserted  this  right  and  jurisdiction,  even  where  the  culprit  de- 
pended on  his  safe  conduct  in  such  a  manner  as  that  he  would  not 
have  come  to  the  place  of  judgment  without  it.  It  asserted  that 
princes  had  no  authority  to  give  a  safe  conduct  which  would 


167 

trench  on  the  judiciary  powers  of  the  spiritual  tribunal,  over 
which  princes,  as  such,  have  no  control.  And  finally,  that  sup- 
posing they  did  give  such  a  safe  conduct,  it  could  not  bind  them, 
only  to  the  extent  of  civil  jurisdiction,  beyond  which  no  safe  con- 
duct can  be  admitted  as  of  any  effect.  Otherwise  a  heretic  might 
appear  before  the  council,  argue  his  case,  propagate  his  errors, 
and  laugh  at  his  spiritual  judges,  because  he  had  a  safe  conduct 
from  the  civil  government.     Let  us  make  the  illustration. 

Supposing  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes,  at  the  Synod  of  York,  had 
pleaded,  in  bar  of  his  suspension,  that  he  had  a  safe  conduct  from 
the  governor  of  the  state,  promising  that  he  should  return  to  his 
congregation  as  he  left  them.  What  would  Father  Green  and  the 
**  bishops"  say?  They  would  say,  "  Sir,  no  safe  conduct  can 
take  from,  Synod  the  power  to  judge  and  punish  you  for  heresy, 
in  your  notes  on  the  RomansJ'^  But  suppose  the  governor  were 
to  appear,  and  say,  '*  I  have  promised  to  see  that  Mr.  Barnes  shall 
return  to  his  congregation  unsuspended,  and  uncondemned.^^ 
They  would  tell  him,  that,  as  to  civil  rights,  he  might  protect  him 
as  the  laws  directed,  but  if  he  promised  to  prevent  Synod  from, 
suspending  Mr.  Barnes,  the  obligation  was  unlawful,  and  he  was 
not  obliged"  to  fulfil  it — inasmuch  as  it  was  out  of  his  power. 
And  supposing  that,  on  this  decision,  we  should  build  an  argu- 
ment to  prove  that  *'  it  is  a  Presbyterian  maxim,  established  not 
by  private  men,  but  by  the  Synod  of  York,  that  *  no  faith  is  to  be 
kept  with  heretics,'  and  that,  therefore,  Presbyterians  ought  not 
to  be  tolerated  by  any  government.  Catholic,  Mahometan,  or 
Pagan  ;"  what  would  the  gentleman  say  ? 

To  prove  that  I  have  fairly  stated  the  case,  and  fairly  estab- 
lished the  parallel,  I  shall  quote  the  original  in  the  words  of  the 
council. 

"  Prsesens  sancta  synodus  ex  quovis  salvo  conductu  per  impe- 
ratorem,  reges  et  alios  seculi  principes  haereticis,  vel  de  haeresi 
diffamatis,  putantes  eosdem  sic  a  suis  erroribus  revocare,  quo 
cunque  vinculo  se  astrinxerint,  concesso,  nullum  fidei  Catholicae 
vel  jurisdictioni  ecclesiasticae  praejudicium  generari,  vel  impedi- 
mentum  praestari  posse,  seu  debere  declarat,  quo  minus,  dicto 
salvo  conductu  non  obstante,  liceat  judici  competenti  ecclesiastic© 
de  hujusmodi  personarum  erroribus  inquirere,  et  alias  contia  eos 
debite  procedere,  eosdemque  punire,  quantum  justitia  suadebit,  si 
suos  errores  revocare  pertinaciter  recusaverint,  etiam  si  de  salvo 
conductu  confisi,  ad  locum  venerint  judicii,  alias  non  venturi ;  nee 
sic  promittentem,  cum  alias  fecerit  quod  in  ipso  est,  ex  hoc  in 
aliquo  remansisse  obligatum."(l)  . 

(1)  Acta  Cone.  Const.,  Sess.  XIX. 


168 

TRANSLATION. 

'*  The  present  sacred  synod  declares,  that,  out  of  any  safe- 
conduct  whatever,  granted,  to  heretics  or  persons  accused  of 
heresy,  by  the  emperor,  kings,  or  secular  princes,  by  whatever 
tie  they  may  have  bound  themselves,  thinking  thus  to  recall 
those  persons  from  their  errors,  no  prejudice  to  Catholic  faith 
can  or  ought  to  arise,  nor  any  obstacle  be  thrown  in  the  way  of 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  by  which  it  might  be  less  lawful  for 
the  competent  and  ecclesiastical  judge,  notwithstanding  said 
safe-conduct,  to  inquire  into  the  errors  of  such  persons,  and 
otherwise  proceed  against  them,  and  punish  them,  as  justice 
shall  direct,  if  they  obstinately  refuse  to  retract  their  errors — 
even  though  they  come  to  the  place  of  judgment,  trusting  to 
their  safe-conduct,  and  otherwise  would  not  have  come:  nor  is 
he  toho  makes  the  promise,  when  he  has  done  what  is  in  his 
power  to  do,  bound  by  any  further  obligation  ^ 

I  call  upon  the  gentleman  now,  either  to  say  that  the  "  maxim" 
that  "  no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with  heretics,"  is  avowed  in  this 
passage,  or  that  it  is  not.  If  it  is,  let  him  tell  in  which  part  of  it. 
He  has  both  languages  before  him.  Let  him  quote  from  either. 
If  it  is  not,  (as  is  manifest  to  every  Latin  reader)  then  let  him,  as  an 
honest  man,  denounce  the  calumny,  as  a  false  and  wicked  charge, 
and  let  him  undeceive  the  American  people  so  far  as  he  has  con- 
tributed to  lead  them  astray  by  aiding  in  its  propagation.  But  no 
retreat — no  shuffling. 

But  did  not,  it  will  be  asked  by  Protestants,  the  Council  of 
Constance  burn  Huss,  at  the  stake  ?  No.  Did  it  not  solicit  that 
he  should  be  burned?  No.  But  did  it  not  condemn  him  as  a 
heretic?  Yes ;  and  it  had,  at  least,  as  much  right  to  do  so  as  the 
Synod  of  York  had  to  condemn  Mr.  Barnes,  as  a  heretic.  But 
did  it  not  "hand  him  over  to  the  civil  power?"  It  degraded 
him  from  his  office  as  a  priest,  which  it  has  a  right  to  do,  wheii 
he  had  rendered  himself  unworthy  of  that  character  by  his  anti- 
Catholic  doctrines  of  heresy  and  sedition.  How,  then,  came  he 
to  be  burned  ?  The  civil  law  of  the  country  contained  the  bar- 
barous enactment  which  authorized  it.  By  condemning  Huss 
as  a  heretic,  the  church  or  council  necessarily  exposed  him  to  the 
law  of  the  state.  But  by  not  condemning  him  the  council  would 
have  been  under  the  necessity  of  approving  heretical  doc- 
trines. Now,  the  church  could  not  allow  Huss  to  preach  heresy 
in  her  name,  as  a  Catholic  priest,  for  any  consideration  that  might 
follow  his  suspension  and  excommunication,  more  than  Synod 
of  York  could  allow  Mr.  Barnes  to  continue  to  preach  heresy  in 
the  name  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  on  the  ground  that  the  loss 
of  his  salary  and  the  suffering  of  his  character,  rnight  be  the 
consequence  of  his  suspension. 


169 

That  Huss  maintained  heretical  and  seditious  doctrines  the 
gentleman  himself  will  allow.  One  of  his  doctrines  condemned 
in  the  council,  was,  that  the  "  authority  of  the  magistrate,  pre- 
late, or  bishop  is  null,  when  he  is  in  mortal  sin." 

Going  to  the  council,  Huss  proclaimed  his  willingness^  in  case 
of  conviction,  to  "  submit  to  all  the  pains  of  heretics.''^  He 
knew  by  the  laws  of  the  land  what  they  wqre.  He  had  appealed 
to  the  council,  and  desired  to  be  tried  by  it.  He  had  obtained 
his  safe-conduct  from  the  emperor,  as  going  to  the  council,  only. 
And  yet  almost  all  Protestants,  deceived  by  their  writers  and 
ministers,  assert  that  the  emperor  had  bound  himself  to  bring  him 
safe  back.  I  call  upon  Mr.  Breckinridge  to  meet  me  in  this 
question ;  and  if  he  denies  one  single  statement  made  by  me  in 
relation  to  it,  I prornise  to  furnish  the  evidence  on  the  most  indis- 
putable authority.  But  let  him  state  his  argument,  and  refer  to 
something  better  than  popular  prejudice  for  his  proof.  The  peo- 
ple will  find  out  how  their  credulity  has  been  imposed  on,  in 
relation  to  these  matters. 

It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  he  will  assert,  or  at  least  insi- 
nuate, that  Mr.  Hughes  is  an  apologist  for  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance, and  of  course  approves  of  the  burning  of  a  heretic.  The 
council  will  require  no  apologist;  it  did  only  what  it  had  a  right 
to  do ;  and  what  is  ascribed  to  it,  over  and  above,  is  properly  to 
be  charged  to  the  calumnies  of  political  or  religious  enmity  to 
Catholics.  As  to  the  burning  of  Huss,  as  a  Christian,  a  Catholic 
and. a  man,  I  reprobate  the  barbarous  and  inhuman  statute  of 
which  it  was  the  execution.  But  to  make  the  church  accountable, 
cither  for  the  existence  of  that  law,  or  for  its  execution,  is  as  false 
in  history,  and  as  absurd  in  reasoning,  as  to  make  it  accountable 
for  not  having  invented  printing  in  the  tenth  century. 

Another  of  the  stereotype  calumnies  which  the  gentleman  and 
his  associates,  in  the  present  crusade  against  the  Catholics,  labour 
to  make  as  immortal  as  truth,  is,  that  the  Inquisition  is  a  part  of 
the  Catholic  religion.  And  whilst,  with  alTected  scrupulosity  of 
conscience,  they  call  our  religion  "  popery,"  they  become  polite 
in  their  libellings  of  it,  and  say  the  "  Holy  Catholic  Inqui- 
sition." 

I  do  not  mean  to  enter  into  defence  of  the  Inquisition;  and  none 
can  have  a  deeper  abhorrence  of  the  cruelties,  real  or  supposed, 
of  which  it  was  made  the  instrument.  But  I  mean  to  show  that 
Protestants  are,  for  the  most  part,  perfectly  deceiv^ed  in  relation 
to  it.  They  suppose  that  it  is,  or  was,  a  part  of  the  Catholic 
religion.  In  this  they  are  deceived.  First,  because  it  was  un- 
known during  the  first  twelve  hundred  years  of  the  church. 
Secondly,  because  in  very  many  Catholic  countries  it  never 
existed.  Of  these,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  mention  England,  the 
kingdom  of  Naples,  in  Italy,  and  France,  where  an  attempt  was 

22 


170 

made  to  establish  it,  but  without  any  histing  success.  In  Spain 
it  was  what  the  civil  government  made  it.  In  no  place  did  it 
exist  except  by  the  permission,  often  at  the  request,  of  the  civil 
government.  Those  Catholic  nations  that  rejected  it  were  as 
sound  in  their  faith  as  tlie  others  that  admitted  it.  Therefore,  it 
was  no  part  of  the  Catholic  religion.  The  representative  of  the 
calumnies,  that  have  been  uttered  against  Catholics  in  relation  to 
the  Inquisition,  is  here  present,  and  let  him  show  from  history 
that  I  have  here  made  one  single  statement  that  is  not  true. 
If  he  does  attempt  it,  I  pledge  myself  to  refute  his  argument. 
But  if  he  does  not,  then  let  him  aid  me  in  denouncing  the  first 
great  calu31ny,  which  he  has  helped  to  circulate,  viz.  that  the 
Inquisition  is  a  part  of  the  Catholic  religion. 

The  next  great  calumny  which  he  has  aided  in  circulating,  is, 
that  there  are  dungeons  of,  or  for,  the  Inquisition  under  the 
Catholic  Churches  in  this  country  ;  thereby  exposing  them  to  share 
the  fate  of  the  Convent  at  Boston.  Now  the  fact  is,  and  it  argues 
great  ignorance  not  to  know  it,  that,  at  this  day,  out  of  the  city  of 
Rome  the  Inquisition  does  not  exist  either  in  fact  or  in  name — 
either  civilly  or  ecclesiastically — in  any  country  under  the  sun. 
Does  he  deny  this  ?  Then  let  him  point  to  the  spot  on  the  map 
©f  the  world  where  it  does  exist. 

And  now  I  propose  to  show  that,  apart  from  the  form  given  to 
it  by  the  state,  the  substance  of  the  Inquisition  exists  in  every 
Protestant  denomination.  The  word  inquisition  is  derived  from 
the  duty  of  inquiring  into  the  real  or  supposed  errors  which 
might  coriupt  the  true  faith.  Thus  when  Mr.  Barnes  appended 
Notes  to  the  Romans,  Dr.  Judkin  became  his  accuser,  and  his 
Presbytery  constituted  the  tribunal  of  Inquisition — to  inquire 
whether  these  things  are  so.  This  tribunal  decided  in  the  nega- 
tive ;  but  a  higher  tribunal  of  Inquisition  reversed  the  decision. 
The  gentleman  himself  was  one  of  the  inquisitors.  In  this  sense, 
all  clergymen  of  all  denominations,  that  hold  tenets  of  doctrine,  a 
denial  of  which  they  regard  as  heresy,  are  by  office  and  profession 
inquisitors.  The  gentleman  will  not,  so  far,  deny  one  word  af 
this.  Where,  then,  is  the  difference,  in  principle,  between  the 
Catholic  and  the  Protestant  Inquisition?  So  far  as  the  inquiry 
into  errors,  and  condemnation  of  heresies  is  concerned,  it  is  com- 
mon to  both ;  and  in  principle,  there  is  not  a  particle  of  differ- 
ence. 

The  gentleman  may  tell  me  that,  here  there  are  no  civil  penal- 
ties attaching  to  the  crime  of  heresy.  True.  But  would  this 
have  been  the  case,  in  Scotland,  Holland,  or  Geneva?  Thanks 
to  the  liberality  of  the  age,  and  the  freedom  of  our  institutions,  the 
inquisitors  of  all  denominations  are  circumscribed  within  their 
proper  sphere.  Here  men  may  be  heretics,  without  kissing  the 
stake  that  Calvin  fixed  for  Servetus,  or  going  through  the  ordeal 


171 

of  a  Spanish  anto  de  fe.  There  are  heresy-hunters  in  every  de- 
nomination that  has  a  creed  which  tJiey  call  ortJiodox  ;  but  it  is  to 
be  hoped  that  the  times  have  gone,  forever,  when  there  can  be  found 
heretic  burners  in  any. 

The  appointment  of  inquisitors,  as  a  special  and  distinct  office, 
was,  if  any  thing,  an  encroachment  on  the  inherent  prerogatives  of 
the  episcopacy,  whose  special  office  it  was  and  is  to  watch  over 
the  purity  of  the  faith.  As  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  their  office 
was  to  inquire  after  heresy,  and  to  judge  whether  those  who  were 
accused  of  it,  were  -guilty,  or  not  guilty.  When  they  had  done 
this,  the  power  which  their  office  gave  them,  so  far  ay  it  was 
derived  from  the  Church,  was  at  an  end.  Now  here  is  a  state- 
ment that  will  startle  the  victims  of  the  delusion  whi<?h  the  gen- 
tleman has  laboured  to  perpetuate,  touching  the  \'  Holy  Catholic 
Inquisition,"  But  I  make  it,  in  order  to  bring  him  to  the  proof. 
He  must  not  say  that  he  can  prove  it,  and  yet  withhold  the  testi- 
mony. 

If,  therefore,  the  ecclesiastical  rsuthority  terminated  at  the  same 
point,  to  which  it  extends  in  a/l  denominations,  even  in  this  age, 
and  in  this  country;  if  it  neither  exacted,  nor  required,  nor  en- 
joined any  penalty  in  life  or  property,  I  ask  him,  is  it  Christian, 
is  it  JUST,  is  it  true,  or  rather,  is  it  not  shamefully  calumnious 
to  charge  on  the  Catholic  religion  the  punishments  which  the 
CIVIL  LAWS  of  Spain  and  Portugal  had  enacted  against  those  Avho 
should  be  found  guilty  by  the  tribunal  of  the  inquisition.  Let  the 
gentleman  not  mistake  the  question.  Let  him  not  undertiike  to 
prove  what  I  do  not  deny,  but  what  I  do  deny. 

Of  all  the  blood  that  ever  was,  or  was  supposed  to  have  been 
shed,  lei  him  show  that  the  Catholic  religion,  or  the  authority  of 
the  Church,  ever  expected,  or  required,  or  enjoined,  that  so  much 
as  one  drop  should  be  shed  for  the  crime  of  heresy.  If  he  cannot, 
how  will  he  stand  before  the  American  public,  whom  he  has  so 
much  contributed  to  deceive  ?  If  he  cannot,  how  will  he  answer 
lo  God,  who  is  the  source  and  lover  of  truth ;  and  who  rejects 
the  aid  which  men  tliink  to  render  to  his  cause,  by  the  employ- 
ment of  CALUMNY  and  "false  witness  against  their  neighbour." 

"But  the  Church  could  have  prevented  it."  Neither  is  that  so 
clear.  The  Church  had  no  jurisdiction  to  establish  civil  laws  in 
France,  and  just  as  little  to  annul  them  in  Spain.  She  judged  of 
heresy,  as  a  crime  before  God ;  and  so  Presbyterians,  as  well  as 
Catholics,  regard  it.  When  she  had  condemned  it  as  such,  her 
jurisdiction  terminated.  The  civil  laws  of  nations  claimed  the 
right  to  determine  offences,  and  assign  their  punishment,  and  this, 
not  as  Catholics,  but  as  nations  exercising  the  rights  of  national 
sovereignty.  Hence  the  inquisition  which  was  adopted  in  Catho- 
lic Spain,  was  rejected  by  Catholic  France,  on  the  ground  that  it 
would  be  consistent  with  the  welfare  of  neither  the  church,  nor  the 


172 

stale.  Neither  was  it  established  in  the  kingdom  of  Naples,  be- 
cause the  Pope  and  King  could  not  a^ree  as  to  which  should  have 
the  right  to  appoint  the  Inquisitor  General,  and  as  neither  would 
yield  to  the  other,  the  inquisition  was  never  established  in  that 
kingdom.  Will  the  gentleman  contradict  any  of  these  facts?  If 
he  does,  I  shall  cite  the  authorities  to  convince  him  and  the  public, 
how  little  he  has  read  of  the  true  history  of  the  Inquisition. 


173 


"/y  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  ?^^ 


AFFIRMATIVE  V.— MR.  BRECKINRIDGE. 


Mr.  President  : — It  ill  becomes  me  to  retort  Mr.  H.'s  vulgar  and 
unchristian  assaults  ;  for  the  sacred  Scriptures  forbid  us  to  "  ren- 
der railing  for  railing.'''  The  low  abuse  and  indecent  personali- 
ties of  the  gentleman^  if  I  can  consent  to  call  him  so  any  longer, 
reflect  most  unhappily  on  his  spirit  and  his  origin,  and  confirm 
what  I  have  long  known,  that  he  is  really  ignorant  of  what  gen- 
tlemen owe  to  each  other  and  to  themselves. 

I  consider  this  a  sufficient  answer  (and  more  than  he  deserves) 
to  all  his  scurrility.  Poor  St.  John's !  It  has  set  up  for  the  fa- 
shionable and  the  refined  worlcj  who  w.\shed  to  go  to  heaven  with- 
out the  trouble  of  being  holy;  and  the  "priest  at  the  altar  was  sup- 
posed by  some  to  have  sprung  from  a  band-box.  As  for  breed- 
ing, they  would  have  found  a  real  gentleman  in  the  Rev.  Charles 
Constantine  Pise;  As  it  is,  (if  any  of  that  people  venture  on  the  ma- 
la prohihita  of  a  controversy  with  heretics,  or  if,  like  the  devouter 
papists,  they  read  Mr.  Hughes's  argument  alone,)  I  am  sure  they 
wUl  find  in  his  last  speech  that  his  breeding  is  skin-deep^  and  it  is 
only  want  of  resolution  that  keeps  him  from  the  frequent  and  free 
use  of  the  ecclesiastical  shillelagh.  After  all  the  gentleman's 
struggles  about  "  the  Latin  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  it  ends  in 
Mr.  Hughes's  conviction  and  uncandid  confession  of  a  flat  mis- 
tatement !  As  to  my  bad  Latin,  I  gave  the  Latin  of  the  \io\y  fa- 
thers ^  and  gave  in  full  the  member  of  the  sentence  which  the  dis- 
cussion called  for  ;  and  he  now  makes  the  presence  of  a  superftvL- 
ous  word,  in  that  member,  an  apology  for  daring  to  charge  me  with 
"  fabricating"  and  "  forging"  Latin  for  the  Council  of  Trent,  and 
then  saying  "  what  will  be  the  reader's  disgust,"  &.c.  &lc.  If  I 
had  left  out  that  word,  then  he  would  have  charged  me  with  cri- 
minal omissions  affecting  the  sense. 

If  this  v»ore  a  solitary  mistatement  of  the  gentleman,  or  if,  being 
the  repetition  of  the  offence,  he  had  with  Christian  candour  ac^ 
knowledged  it,  I  should  have  said  no  more  about  it,  for  I  do  from 
my  heart  pity  him.  But  you  remember,  gentlemen,  that  during 
the  debate  he  produced  Caranza,  and  represented  me  as  having 


174 

said  that  a  certain  passage  was  in  Caranza,  and  told  us  that  it  was 
NOT  in  Caranza,  and  gloried  in  the  apparent  triumph  over  my 
character  !  When  lo !  on  my  turning  to  my  letter  in  the  former  Con- 
troversy, (on  which  he  charged  the  falsehood)  \  found  and pi-oved 
before  the  whole  socictij,  that  he  had  utterly  falsified  my  letter,  that 
I  had  distinctly  declared  that  Caranza  omitted  the  passage  !  And 
how  did  he  excuse  himself?  By  saying  that  when  hejirst  asserted 
it,  I  had  been  silent,  and  therefore  he  thought  it  true  and  admit- 
ted by  me.  But  does  the  silence  of  a  slandered  man  make  the 
slander  true?  And  pray,  why  did  he  say  it  ihe Jirst  time?  Does 
one  falsehood  excuse  two  7  I  refer  you  also  to  his  treatment  of 
Mosheim,  which  made  a  shiver  of  involuntary  horror  run  like  a 
wave  over  this  assembly  when  it  was  first  exposed. 

As  to  the  "  injliction  of  punishment  in  the  sacrament  of  penance 
if  (as  he  says)  "  satisfaction  consists  in  repairing  (as  far  as  he  can) 
the  injury  which  he  (the  penitent)  has  done  to  his  neighbour," 
I  would  say  that  it  is  high  time  for  him  to  seek  a  confessor  him- 
self, and  recal  his  slanders,  and  confess  \i'\s  false  statements  in  this 
debate.  1  do  not  wonder  that  he  ridicules  the  doctrines  of  "  rc- 
gencration^'  which  even  the  dark  mind  of  Nicodemus,  amidst  his 
marvel  ?ii  its  mysterious  character,  durst  not  despise.  When  we. 
come  to  shx)W  tha4;  ^'  immorality  is  necessary  to  the  very  nature  of 
papal  penance,"  we  shall  also  prove  that  *'  indulgences  are  a  bun- 
dle of  licenses  to  commi^in ;"  as  we  have  in  the  last  speech 
showed,  without  any  reply  but  a  denial  from  the  gentleman,  that 
punishment  is  supposed  ia  penance,  and  that  corporeal  punishment 
is  often  included.'  Sometimes,  it  is  perhaps  vjdAk'mg  barefoot,  at 
an  early  hour  before  St.  Johi's ;  sometimes,  it  is  to  ptray  for  a 
long  time,  each  day,  for  many  days  ;  {Joy  prayer  is  a  great  punish- 
ment to  some  people,)  sometimes,  self-castigation  ;  sometimes, 
walking  on  the  knees  so  many  times  around  a  holy  well,  or  idol,  or 
altar;  or  it  may  he  pecuniary  fines ,  (these  are  precious  to  priests) 
or  exile,  or  imprisonment  in  the  dungeons  of  the  monastery.  It 
is  from  this  very  word,  and  this  very  use  of  it,  that  our  Vet m  peni- 
tentiary is  derived. 

It  is  pleasant  to  me,  though  vain  for  the  gentleman,  that  helms 
at  length  attempted  io  look  at  the  testimony  of  Dcvoti.  He  tells 
us  gravely,  that  Devoti  in  speaking  **  of  the  power  by  which  the 
state  authorised  the  church  to  punish  ecclesiastics  by  imprisonment 
or- otherwise,""  (the  otherwise— cover.s^wes,  exile,  castigation,&LC.) 
or  in  other  words,  that  the  author  did  not  ckim  for  the  church  anj 
original  power  to  inflict  such  punishments.  But  this  is  di»^ctly 
false  ;  for  in  the  very  passage  before  his  eyes,  cited  i"  my  last 
speech,  Devoti  says,  *'  P.  La  Borde  endeavours  iu  yrtdcimine  and 
take  away  the  power  given  by  Christ  to  the  church,  not 
merely  of  government,  by  counsels  and  persuasion,  but  also  decree- 
ing by  laws  and  of  compulsion,  and  of  coercing  with  punish- 
ment those  who  are  worthy  of  it."     Here  is  a  flat  contradiC' 


175 

tion  of  Mr.  Hughes,  and  the  author  cites  (too  popes  (I)  who  con- 
demned this  vcri/  principle  ! 

The  gentJenian  proceeds — "  During  the  middle  ages,  ecclesi- 
astical offenders  were  tried,  not  by  civil,  hut  by  ecclesiastical 
judges.'"'  Yes,  this  is  by  the  canon  laio,  (which  is  the  text-book  of 
popish  doctrine  on  the  power  of  the  church,)  not  used  as  '*  the  con- 
cession of  the  stated  but  claimed  as  the  right  of  the  church,  and 
those  are  denounced  who  dare  to  do  otherwise  !  Yet  Mr.  Hughes 
s^ys  M^^ivas  by  concession  of  the  slated  Query.  If  the  United 
States  were  to  concede  this  to  Roman  Catholics,  doestheir  religion 
forbid  it?  The  Presbyterian  C\\\\xc\\  forbids  this  as  contrary  to 
the  word  of  God.  **And  the  same  principles  which  authorised 
the  church  to  try  clerics  for  offences,  authorised  it  also  to 

PUNISH  THEM  WHEN  GUILTY  OF  CIVIL  PENALTIES.      It  is  in   COUnCX- 

ion  with  this  state  of  things,  that  Devoti  speaks  of  ^ prisons,^ 
exile,  pecuniary  fines,  ^c.  as  having  been  used  by  the  church.'^ 

But  Devoti  expressly  says,  "  this  power  is  given  by  Christ  to  the 
church,""  and  is,  of  course,  inalienable  and  perpetual.  If  it  fails  to 
exercise  it,  then  it  is  for  want  o^  ability,  not  want  of  right.  And 
p'ray,  when  did  the  church  cease  to  use  them  ? — never,  till  forced  by 
the  state.  Where  did  she  ever  cease  to  use  them? — nowhere,  till 
she  was  compelled  to  do  it! 

He  next  cites  arid  translates  a  passage  from  the  same  author, 
to  prove  that  "  the  highest  grade  of  ecclesiastical  coercion  is  ex- 
pulsion" from  the  Church.  But,  unhappily  for  the  gentleman,  in 
the  7iext  sentence  to  the  one  so  pompously  quoted  by  him,  the 
author  goes  on  to  say—"  Bjd  he  who  offends  against  society  by 
any  crime,  if  a  clergyman,  is  subject  to  the  judgment  of  the  Churchy 
not  on  account  of  the  thing  itself,  which  is  proper  to  the  civil  com- 
monwealth, hut  on  account  of  the  person,  because,  forsooth,  he  is 
a  citizen  of  the  ecclesiastical  commonwealth.  Wherefore,  the 
Church  proceeds  against  him,  hy  imprisonment  or  other  corporal 
punishment ;  and  if  the  crime  he  still  more  weighty,  for  which  the 
lenity  and  mildness  of  the  Church  has  no  adequate  punishment, 
(poenam)  she  degrades  him — that  is,  permits  him  to  be  no  longer 
a  citizen  of  her  commonwealth;  hut  subjects  him,  like  other  laics , 
to  the  civil  power.  It  (the  civil  power)  therefore  exercises  the 
jurisdiction  over  this  man  ivho  is  now  a  citizen  of  its  common- 
wealth, lohich  it  has  over  its  other  citizens;  and  visits  him  with 
death  or  other  punishinents,  appointed  hy  civil  law.'^  (2) 

(1)  See  the  whole  extract  in  tny  last  speech. 

(2)  Q,ui  iiliquo  criniine  societatem  Icesit  si  clericus  sit  ecclesiae  judicio  subest, 
non  propter  rem  ipsain,  quse  propria  est  civilis  reipublica),  sed  propter  personam, 
quia  silicet  ecclesiasticuj  reipnblicee  civis  est.  Itaque  in  eum  ecclesia  ariimad- 
vertil  Cvircere,  aut  alia  poena  corporali;  et  si  gravins  crimen  sit  cui  non  parem 
habeat  pcenam  ecclesiae  comitas  et  mansuetudo  eum  de  gradu  dejecit;  hoc  est 
non  amplius  sua;  reipublicae  civem  esse  sinit,  sed  ad  instar  ca;terorum  laicorum 
subjecil  civiji  potestati.  Ipsa  vero  in  hunc  hominem,  qui  jam  suae  reipublicae 
civis  est  impenum  exercet  quod  habet  in  reliquos  cives  suos,  eum  que  coercet 
morte,  caeteris  ve  pcenis  quaj  sunt  a  civiUbus  legibus  constitutae. 


176 

Here  it  clearly  appears,  that  Devoti  holds  the  doctrine,  that  the 
clergy  arc  punishable,  temporally  and  corporally,  by  the  Church, 
(which  he  says  derived  this  power  from  Christ,  as  quoted  by  me 
above,  and  not  from  the  State,  as  Mr.  Hughes  falsely  says;)  that 
the  fact  of  being  a  clergyman  gives  the  Church  this  power;  that 
he  must  be  degraded,  i.  e.  cease  to  be  a  clergyman  in  order  to  be 
reached  by  the  civil  power.  How  strangely  must  the  gentleman 
feel  to  be  thus  caught  in  the  same  page,  and  in  his  own  papal 
theology ! 

The  gentleman  **  mired^^  "  in  the  same  mud"  (to  use  the  ele- 
gant figure  of  Devoti),  struggles  to  prove  that  I  have  perverted 
the  author;  and  denies  that  he  claims  any  thing  for  the  Church, 
but  spiritual  jurisdiction.  Yet,  in  the  sixth  page  of  the  same 
book,  §  5,  he  says — "  For  those  who  are  placed  over  a  common- 
wealth, in  authority,  have  power  over  ail  the  things  which  pertain 
to  that  commonwealth,  viz.  over  the  persons  of  which  it  consists; 
and  the  thmgs  which  these  persons  use  and  enjoy  in  prolonging 
life.  Wherefore,  also  the  magistracy  (magistratus)  of  the  Church 
ought  to  have  judicial  power  over  the  things  and  persons  of  her 
commonwealth,  which  other  magistrates  have  over  theirs.'''' 

When  we  come  to  present  the  proof  from  the  inquisition,  that 
the  institutions  of  popery  {embodying  and  expressing  her  doc- 
trines and  her  morals,)  are  opposed  to  liberty  in  all  its  lovely 
forms,  then  we  will  show  how  far  the  gentleman' s  defence  of,  or 
at  least,  apology  for,  "  a  good  thing  abused,"  has  any  claim 
to  our  regard  by  its  weight,  or  any  title  to  our  credence  by  its 
truth. 

In  the  mean  time  honest  Devoti  shall  again  speak.  He  surely 
knows  lohat  the  inquisition  is.  He  wrote  in  sight  of  it.  His  work 
is  franked  from  Rome  itself  Let  honest  men  compare  the  follow- 
nig  statement  with  what  Mr.  Hughes  says: — 

Under  the  head  **  Inquisitors  of  heretical  pravity ^  he  gives  the 
following  statements :  *'  The  cause  of  instituting  the  tribunal 
called  the  inquisition,  was  this.  At  first  every  bishop  in  his  own 
diocese,  or  a  number  of  bishops  assembled  in  a  provincial  council, 
made  inquisition  of  those  errors-  which  arose  in  the  diocese  or 
province ;  but  the  more  weighty  matters  were  always  referred  to 
the  apostolical  see,  (Rome,)  and  thus  every  bishop  or  provincial 
council  took  care  to  bring  to  its  proper  issue  whatever  was  decreed 
by  the  apostolical  see.  But  in  process  of  time,  when  greater  evils 
pressed,  it  became  necessary  for  the  pope  to  send  legates  into 
those  regions  in  which  heresy  had  long  and  widely  spread,  that 
they  might  assist  the  bishops  in  restraining  the  audacity  of  aban- 
doned men,  and  in  deterring  Christians  from  foreign  and  depraved 
doctrines.  But  when  new  errors  daily  sprung  up,  and  the  num- 
ber of  heretics  was  greatly  increased,  seeing  that  the  legates  could 
not  always  be  at  hand  nor  apply  the  proper  remedy,  it  was  deter- 
mined to  INSTITUTE  A  STANDING  TRIBUNAL  that  should  always  be 


177 

present,  and  at  all  times  and  in  every  country  should  devote  their 
minds  to  preserving  the  soundness.of  the  faith,  and  to  restraining 
and  expelling  heresies  as  they  arose.  Thus  it  was  that  the  in- 
quisitors were  first  appointed  to  perform  the  office  of  vicars  to  the 
Holy  See,  But  as  in  a  matter  so  weighty  as  the  preservation  of 
the  purity  of  the  faith,  the  inquisitors  needed  that  close  union  of 
mind  and  sentiment  which  is  proper  to  the  apostolical  see,  as 
the  centre  of  unity,  there  was  instituted  at  Rome,  by  the  Popes, 
an  assembly  or  congregation  of  cardinals  in  which  the  Pope  pre- 
sides. This  congregation  is  the  head  of  all  inquisitors  over  the 
tchole  world,  to  it  they  all  refer  their  more  difficult  matters,  and  its  . 
authority  and  judgment  are  fiaal^ 

**It  is  rightly  and  wisely  ordered  that  the  pope's  office  and 
power  should  sustain  this  institution,  for  he  is  the  centre  of  unity 
and  head  of  the  church ;  and  to  him  Christ  has  committed  ple- 
nary power  to  feed,  teach,  rule  and  govern  all  Christians."  (I) 

Surely  one  of  these  gentlemen  has  been  guilty  of  no  small  de- 
partures from  historical  and  doctrinal  truth  ! 

The  same  author  (2)  says  expressly,  "  And  since  the  power  of 
the  church  is  two-fold,  the  one  wholly  spiritual  given  separately 
by  Christ,  which  is  exercised  both  in  the  inner  and  outer  court,  the 
other  which  she  has  in  common  with  every  perfect  and  distinct 
commonwealth,  and  which  is  called  temporal;  it  follows  that 
there  are  two  kinds  of  punishment  ordained  by  her.  That  is,  one 
kind  is  spiritual,  lohich  is  to  affiict  the  soul ;  the  other  tempo- 
ral, WHICH  IS  TO  CASTIGATE  THE  BODY.  She  excTcises  the  right 
rf(>  inflict  spiritual  punishments  on  all  who  by  baptism  are  admitted 
among  the  children  of  the  church,  and  who  sin  against  religion. 
The  CHURCH  also  has  set  up  temporal  punishments  for  all,  but  the 

LAITY  AND  CLERGY  IN  AN  UNEQUAL  DEGREE."  NoW,  if  the  gentle- 
man ventures  again  to  deny  that  this  writer  claims  for  the  church 
the  right  to  inflict  temporal  and  bodily  punishments ^  I  will  expose 
him  in  a  way  which  he  must  deeply  regret. 

i  am  willing  to  leave  the  long  contest  about  Bossuet  to  speak 
for  itself;  and  so  also  that  about  the  third  canon  of  Fourth  Later- 
ran.  The  hearer  and  reader  must  have  perceived  that  at  every 
step  the  gentleman  has  given  ground.  First  he  tried  to  defend 
the  canon,  as  being  only  discipline  against  murderers.  Then, 
driven  from  that,  he  assailed  the  authenticity  of  the  canon — the 
whole  canon;  and  lo!  in  the  last  speech  he  is  finally  forced  to  own 
that  it  is  only  one  of  Jive  sections  of  that  canon  which  he  can 
assail;  and  in  a  Jesuitical  way  is  constrained  to  confess,  after 
being  exposed,  that  he  did  mistate  in  condemning  the  whole 
canon. 

I  think,  gentlemen,  he  will  attempt  to  spike  no  more  of  these 
canons. 

(1)  Devoti,  book  iv,  title  8.  passim.  (2)  Book  iv.,  ^  8,  p.  12. 

23 


178 

The  gentleman  scolds  about  Matthew  Paris,  but  wisely  forgets 
"Dens's"  Theology,  and  my  challenge  on  that  book,  which  has 
opened  the  eyes  of  millions  on  the  other  side  of  the  waters  to  new 
evidences  on  the  persecuting  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

The  reason  why  all  the  Etiropecm  authorities  quoted  by  me  are 
more  impartial  than  Mr.  Hughes,  is  not  "  that  Mr.  Hughes  (as 
the  gentleman  says)  can  be  a  Catholic  in  the  United  States,"  with- 
out holding  doctrines  opposed  to  liberty  ;  but  because  Mr.  Hughes 
has  proved  to  us  that  he  dares  not  honestly  avow  what  the  true 
doctrine  of  his  church  is,  in  tlje  United  States  !  The  gentleman's 
defence  of  the  Bulla  in  Ccena  Domini,  is  a  concession  of  the  ques- 
tion in  debate.  I  need  not,  therefore,  dwell  much  more  on  it. 
For  example,  he  says,  was  it  wrong  for  the  Pope  to  condemn  pi- 
rates? Was  it:  **  inhuman  to  'condemn  the  illegal  imposition  of 
taxes?''"'  Why,  Mr.  Hughes!  These  taxes,  says  the  Pope,  were 
imposed  in  "  dominio7is'"  of  others,  "  without  the  special  leave  of 
the  apostolic  see  T^  Of  course  Mr.  Hughes  thinks  it  not  against  the 
liberty  of  states  for  the  pope  to  interfere  with  their  taxation  of 
their  own  subjects!  And  so  of  all  the  invasions  in  this  Bull,  of 
the  rights  of  sovereign  states ;  he  defends  them,  says  they  were 
according  to  the  canon  law,  &c.  &.c.  Yes  !  and  for  that  very  rea- 
son, since  the  Pope's  bull,  sustained  by  the  canon  law,  thus  claims 
jurisdiction  over  sea  and  land,  armies,  navies,  battles,  treasuries, 
coasts,  '^c.  &c. ;  and  since  Mr.  Hughes  defends  the  acts  and 
claims,  he  concedes  being  unable  to  defend  the  question  in 
debate. 

Of  Anathema  we  shall  speak,  in  its  place,  and  too  soon  for  the 
gentleman. 

The  gentleman  in  reply  to  my  question — "  Had  the  majority  in 
Spain  or  Italy  the  right  to  establish  the  Catholic  religion  by  law?''''  an- 
swers, '•'  in  my  opinion,  if  the  majority  in  Italy  or  iSpain,  by  doing  so, 
violated  no  civil  or  religious  right  of  the  minority,  they  had  in  that 
case  the  right.'"  This  is  alloiving  that  the  Catholic  religion  may 
be  in  certain  cases  established  by  law,  ivithout  violating  the  right 
of  the  minorily.  This  is  again  C07iceding  the  whole  question. 
For  when  can  a  majority  do  this,  without  such  a  violation  of  the 
rights  of  the  minority?  I  ask  the  gentleman  ivhen,  or  how  can 
this  be  done?  The  American  principle,  the  Bible  doctrine,  is, 
that  it  is  violating  the  rights  of  a  minority  to  establish  any  re- 
ligion by  law!  That  no  majority  can,  in  any  possible  case,  of 
right,  do  such  a  thing!  That  if  «//  were  of  the  same  religion,  it 
were  anli-christian  and  anti-liberal  to  do  it !  Here  we  see  leaking 
out  the  gentleman's  majority ,  rights— 'w\\\c\\  he  exposed  the  first 
night  of  our  debate,  then  tried  to  retract  ;  and  now  again,  drawn 
by  the  debate  arid  by  his  other  principles,- is  compelled  to  admit! 

As  to  our  Scotch  fathers,  I  say,  unequivocally,  that  they  had  no 
right,  however  great  a  majority  they  may  have  composed,  to  ''pull 
doicn  the  monuments  of  papal  idolatry  by  force.'''     It  was  wholly 


.  179 

icrong  !  Mr.  Westley  ^^  being  dead  yet  speaketh.^'  I  am  happy  to 
honour  the  memory  of  that  great  and  good  man  ;  and  when  Mr. 
Hughes  answers,  or  even  attempts  to  answer  his  arguments,  as 
quoted  by  me,  I  will  on  the  ground  stated  when  1  cited  his  re- 
marks, meet  Mr.  Hughes,  and  all  the  college  of  priests  who  help 
him,  in  and  about  St.  Johns,  and  the  library  of  St.  Augustine. 

In  the  very  terms  of  the  gentleman's  citation  from  the  Council 
of  Constance,  the  doctrine  is  avowed  that  the  faith,  the  pledged 
faith  {of  the  emperor)  that  Huss  should  return  in  safety  from  the 
council,  was  not  binding. 

But  we  will  hereafter,  at  large,  put  this  matter  in  the  light  to 
make  "  the  defender  of  the  Council  of  Constance^ s  crimes'''' — blush 
once  more,  if  that  faculty  has  not  been  lost  by  him. 

Having  now  disposed  of  the  gentleman's  despairing  attacks  on 
my  authorities,  J  proceed  to  adduce  others: — 

We  have  seen  from  the  disclosures  of  my  former  speeches  how 
far  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  permits  his  zeal  in  defence  of  the 
papacy  to  carry  him  in  denying  the  existence  and  obligation  of 
documents,  which  make  a  part  of  the  history  of  the  world,  and 
which  are  known  to  every  well  informed  man  in  Europe  and 
America. 

We  have  still  stronger  illustrations  of  the  same  reckless  spirit 
for  the  present  one. 

In  letter  No.  15  of  the  Controversy,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  said, 
**  Show  me  theii  the  decree  of  any  Council,  or  the  Bull  of  any 
Pope,  proposing  persecution  as  a  part  of  our  religion,  and  let  that' 
■document  be  the  proof  of  your  charge."  In  answer  to  this  call, 
I  produced  copious  extracts  from  the  Bull  of  Pope  Innocent  VHI. 
for  the  extirpation  of  the  Vadois  (or  Waldenses)  given  to  Albert 
de  Capitaneis,  A.  D.  1477,  stating  at  the  same  time,  in  proof  of 
its  authenticity,  that  the  original  was  preserved  in  the  University 
of  Cambridge,  England.  And  how  did  he  meet  its  terrific  con- 
tents? Why  in  this  extraordinary  way :  "Pope  Innocent  VIII. 
was  elected  in  the  year  1484,  and  it  is  not  usual  with  our  Popes 
to  issue  Bulls  seven  years  before  their  election:  such  Bulls  come 
from  another  quarter."  Here  he  implies  that  the  Bull  has  been 
forged;  that  it  was  never  issued  from  Rome;  and  the  proof  is 
drawn  from  an  error  of  ten  years  in  the  date!  But  in  my  next 
letter,  I  corrected  the  date,  which  was  1487,  instead  of  1477,  and 
which  had  been  a  misprint  in  the  work  from  which  I  had  extract- 
ed it.  I  then  added:  "  do  you  deny  that  there  was  such  a  Bull? 
If  you  have  any  doubts  on  this  subject,  I  refer  you  to  Baronius's 
Annals,  Vol.  XIX,  page  387,  section  25th." 

And  now,  guileless  hearer,  can  you  divine  how  any  art  could 
evade  such  testimony?  He  replies:  "The  Annals  of  Baronius 
come  down  only  to  the  year  1198,  and  yet  you  quote  his  autho- 
rity for  a  fact  which  should  have  taken  place  in  1487!!!  How  is 
this?"     But   Raynold,  the  accredited  continuator  of   Baronius, 


180 

brings  down  the  history  of  the  church  to  the  year  1534!  The 
reply  then  was,  there  is  no  such  Bull,  because  Barronius  died  be- 
fore it  was  issued?  On  such  shallow  evasions  he  ventures  flatly 
to  deny  the  existence  of  the  Bull.  In  Letter  19,  he  says  :  "  You 
ask  me,  do  I  deny  it?  and  without  waiting  for  my  answer,  you 
reply,  that  *  /  dare  not.'  Now,  I  reply  that  I  dare,  and  do  deny  it 
flatly. '*''  And  now  see  what  Baronius's  continuator,  Mr.  Hughes's 
authentic  historian,  says: 

"  By  which  indignity  Innocent,  much  excited,  ordered  the 
Gauls,  Savoyes,  and  Germans,  within  whose  territories  the  impiety 
still  remained  firmly  rooted,  to  take  up  arms  for  the  destruction  of 
the  heretics;  and  he  smote  the  favourers  of  the  heretics  with 
heavy  punishments;  at  the  same  time  he  commissioned  Albert  de 
Capitaneis,  Archdeacon  of  Cremona,  with  ample  powers  to  pub- 
lish a  crusade  for  the  extermination  of  the  Waldenses,  and  to  stir 
up  Princes  and  Bishops  against  them.  The  date  of  this  docu- 
ment is  as  follows:  Given  at  Rome  at  St.  Peter'' s,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord's  incarnation  1487,  ^th  of  Kallends  of  May,  and  of  our 
Pontificate  the  3f/." 

Having  then  been  brought  to  such  sad  issues  with  his  own  his- 
torian and  with  notorious  facts,  his  last  vain  struggle  was  this: 
*'  Does  he  say  that  such  a  Bull  exists?  No.  The  quotation 
merely  testifies  that  Albertus  Capitaneis  was  commissioned  to 
preach  a  crusade  against  the  Waldenses,  &lc.  &c."  Was  there 
ever  such  evasion?  was  evasion  ever  more  unavailing  and  palpa- 
ble? ^'^Commissioned!''  But  who  comnr.issioned  him?  Why 
the  Pope!  But  what  was  the  commission?  A  Brief?  a  Bull? 
Letters  Patent?  an  Edict  of  Blood  ?  The  name  matters  not.  It 
is  the  thing  we  look  to?  The  historian  tells  us  of  this  thing; 
and  it  was  a  commission  with  ample  powers  from  Innocent  VIII. 
the  Pope,  to  preach  a  crusade  against  the  TValdenses  for  their  ex- 
termination, and  to  stir  up  Princes  and  Bishops  against  them. 
And  yet  Mr.  Hughes  says  the  historian  "  merely  testifies  that 
Albertus  was  commissioned  to  preach  a  crusade  against  the  Wal- 
denses." *'  Merely  a  crusade!  ! !"  Do  we  need  any  more  proof 
of  Mr.  Hughes's  secret  feelings  on  this  subject;  or  of  the  Papal 
system  ?  Merely  a  crusade!  in  which,  by  authority  of  the  Pope, 
a  great  army,  headed  by  prehdes,  and  ptriests,  and  pri7ices,  in- 
vaded a  territory  over  which  the  Pope  had  no  civil  control,  and  in 
the  name  of  God,  butchered  thousands  of  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren, because  they  held  doctHnes  in  religion,  which  the  Pope 
ccdled  heresy?  In  order  to  show  the  spirit  of  this  Bull,  as  well 
as  the  recklessness  of  our  American  defender  of  the  faith,  I  here 
spread  it  out  in  full  for  the  use  of  Mr.  Hughes,  and  of  all  our 
readers;  and  when  we  get  a  copy  of  the  original  Latin  (as  we 
expect  soon  to  do)  ffom  the  archives  of  Cambridge  University,  we 
will  give  it  to  the  American  people. 

"  Innocent  the  Bishop,  servant  of  the  servants  of  God,  to  our 


181 

well  beloved  son  Albertus  de  Capitaneis,  archdeacon  of  the  Church 
of  Cremona,  our  nuntio,  and  commissary  of  the  Apostolical  See, 
in  the  dominions  of  our  dear  son  the  noble  Charles,  duke  of  Savoy, 
both  on  this  side  and  that  side  of  the  mountains,  in  the  city  of 
Vienne  in  Dauphiny,  and  in  the  city  and  diocese  of  Sedun,  and 
the  places  adjacent;  health  and  apostolic  benediction. 

"  The  chief  wishes  of  our  heart  demand  that  we  should  endea- 
vour, with  the  most  studious  vigilance,  to  withdraw  those  from  the 
precipice  of  errors,  for  whose  salvation  the  sovereign  Creator  of 
all  things  himself  choosed  to  suffer  the  greatest  of  human  mise- 
ries, and  carefully  to  watch  over  their  salvation  ;  ive^  to  whom  he 
hath  been  pleased  to  commit  the  charge  and  government  of  his 
flock,  and  who  most  ardently  desire,  that  the  Catholic  faith  should 
prosper  and  triumph  under  our  pontifical  reign,  and  that  heretical 
pravity  should  be  extirpated  from  the  territories  of  the  faithful. 

"We  have  heard,  with  great  displeasure,  that  certain  sons  of 
iniquity,  inhabitants  of  the  province  of  Ambrun,  &c.  followers  of 
that  most  pernicious  and  abominable  sect  of  wicked  men,  called 
poor  inen  of  Lyons,  or  Waldenses,  which  long  ago  hath  most  un- 
happily {damnabiliter)  risen  up  in  Piedmont,  and  the  other  places 
adjacent,  by  the  malice  of  the  Devil,  endeavouring,  with  fatal  in- 
dustry, to  ensnare  and  seduce  the  sheep  dedicated  to  God,  through 
winding  devious  paths,  and  dangerous  precipices,  and  at  last  to 
lead  them  to  the  perdition  of  their  souls;  who,  under  a  deceitful 
appearance  of  sanctity,  and  delivered  up  to  a  reprobate  sense, 
have  the  utmost  aversion  to  follow  the  way  of  truth,  and  who,  ob- 
serving certain  superstitious  and  heretical  ceremonies,  say,  do, 
and  commit  very  many  things  contrary  to  the  orthodox  faith, 
offensive  to  the  eyes  of  the  Divine  Majesty,  and  most  dangerous 
in  themselves  to  the  salvation  of  souls. 

"  And  whereas  our  well  beloved  son  Blasius  de  Mont  Royal,  of 
the  order  of  preaching  friars,  professor  in  theology,  inquisitor 
general  in  these  parts,  transported  himself  into  that  province,  in 
order  to  induce  them  to  abjure  the  foresaid  errors,  and  profess  the 
true  faith  of  Christ,  having  been  formerly  appointed  for  that  ser- 
vice by  the  master  general  of  that  order,  and  afterwards  by  our 
beloved  son  Cardinal  Dominic,  styled  Presbyter  of  St.  Clement^ 
legate  of  the  Holy  See  in  these  places,  and  at  last  by  Pope  Sixtus 
IV.,  of  happy  memory,  our  immediate  predecessor:  but  so  far 
from  forsaking  their  wicked  and  perverse  errors,  like  the  deaf 
adder  that  shuts  its  ears,  they  proceed  to  commit  yet  greater  evils 
than  before,  not  being  afraid  to  preach  publicly,  and,  by  their 
preachings,  to  draw  others  of  the  faithful  in  Christ  into  the  same 
errors,  to  contemn  the  excommunications ,  interdicts,  and  other  cen- 
sures of  the  said  inquisitor,  to  demolish  his  house,  to  carry  off  and 
spoil  the  goods  that  were  in  it,  and  those  of  other  Catholics:  to 
kill  his  servant,  to  wage  open  war,  to  resist  their  temporal  lords: 
to  destroy  their  property,  to  chase  them,  with  their  families,  from 


182 

their  parishes,  burning  or  demolishing  their  houses,  hindering 
them  to  receive  their  rents,  doing  to  them  all  the  mischief  in  their 
power,  as  also  to  commit  innumerable  other  crimes  the  most  de- 
testable and  abominable. 

**  We  therefore,  as  obliged  hy  the  duty  of  our  pastoral  charge, 
being  desirous  to  pluck  up  and  wholly  root  out  from  the  Catholic 
Church  that  execrable  sect,  and  those  impious  errors  formerly  men- 
tioned, lest  they  should  spread  farther,  and  lest  the  hearts  of  the 
faithful  should  be  damnably  corrupted  by  them,  and  to  repress 
such  rash  and  audacious  attempts,  we  have  resolved  to  exert  every 
effort  for  this  purpose,  and  to  bestow  hereupon  all  our  care,  and 
we  putting  our  special  trust  in  God  as  to  your  learning,  the  ma- 
turity of  your  wisdom,  your  zeal  for  the  Aiith,  and  experience  in 
affairs;  and  likewise  hoping  that  you  will  execute,  with  honesty 
and  prudence,  all  that  we  have  judged  proper  to  commit  to  you  for 
extirpating  such  errors,  we  have  thought  good  to  appoint  you,  by 
these  presents,  our  nuntio,  and  commissary  of  the  Apostolic  See, 
for  the  cause  of  God  and  of  the  faith,  in  the  dominions  of  our  dear 
son  Charles,  duke  of  Savoy,  &lc.  to  the  intent  that  you  may  cause 
the  said  inquisitor  to  be  received  and  admitted  to  the  free  exer- 
cise of  his  office,  and  that  by  your  seasonable  remedies,  you  may 
prevail  with  these  most  wicked  followers  of  the  Waldensian  sect, 
and  others  defiled  with  the  infection  of  any  sort  of  heresy  what- 
ever, to  abjure  their  errors,  and  obey  the  orders  of  the  said  in- 
quisitor: and  that  you  may  be  able  to  effect  this  with  so  much 
more  ease,  in  proportion  to  the  greatness  of  the  power  and  autho- 
rity wherewith  you  are  vested  by  us,  we,  by  these  presents,  grant 
to  you  a  full  and  entire  licence  and  authority  to  call  and  instantly 
to  require,  by  yourself  or  by  any  other  person  or  persons,  all  the 
archbishops  and  bishops  in  the  dutchy,  in  Dauphiny,  and  in  the 
parts  adjacent,  (whom  the  Most  High  hath  appointed  to  be  part- 
ners witli  us  in  our  travail,)  and  to  com^nand  them,  in  virtue  of 
holy  obedience,  together  with  the  venerable  brethren  our  ordina- 
ries or  their  vicars,  or  the  officials  general  in  the  cities  and  dio- 
ceses wherein  you  may  see  meet  to  proceed  to  the  premises,  and 
to  execute  the  office  which  we  have  enjoined  you ;  and  with  the 
foresaid  inquisitor,  a  man  of  great  erudition,  established  in  the 
faith,  and  of  ardent  zeal  for  the  salvation  of  souls,  that  they  he 
assisting  to  you  in  the  things  mentioned,  and  with  one  consent  pro- 
ceed, along  icilh  you,  to  the  execution  of  them;  that  they  take  arms 
against  the  said  VValdenses  and  other  heretics,  and,  with  common 
counsels  and  measures,  crush  and  tread  them  as  venomous  ser- 
pents; and  that  they  provide  with  care,  that  the  people  committed 
to  their  inspection  persist  and  be  confirmed  in  the  confession  of 
the  true  faith ;  and  that,  in  a  work  so  holy  and  so  very  necessary 
as  the  extermination  and  dissipation  of  these  heretics,  they  apply 
all  their  endeavours,  and  willingly  bestow  all  their  pains  as  in  duly 
bound;  and,  in  fine,  that  they  neglect  nothing  which  rnay  in  any 
way  contribute  to  that  design. 


183 

**  Moreover,  to  intreat  our  most  dear  son  in  Christ,  Charles  the 
illustrious  king  of  France,  and  our  belovfed  sons  the  noblemeUy 
Charles  duke  of  Savoy,  the  dukes,  princes,  earls,  and  temporal 
lords  of  cities,  lands,  and  the  universities  of  these  and  other 
places,  the  confederates  of  higher  Germany,  and  in  general  all 
others  who  are  faithful  in  Christ  in  these  countries,  that  they  may 
take  up  the  shield  for  defence  of  the  orthodox  faith,  of  which  they 
made  profession  in  receiving  holy  baptism,  and  the  cause  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  kings  reign,  and  princes  rule  ;  and 
that  they  afford  help  to  the  said  archbishops,  bishops,  to  you,  to 
their  vicars,  or  officials,  and  to  the  inquisitor,  by  suitable  aids, 
and  by  their  secular  arm,  according  as  they  understand  to  be 
needful  for  executing  such  a  necessary  and  salutary  perquisition ; 
and  that  they  vehemently  and  vigorously  set  themselves  in  oppo- 
sition to  these  heretics,  for  the  defence  of  the  faith,  the  safety  of 
their  country,  the  preservation  of  themselves  and  of  all  that  be- 
long to  them,  that  so  they  ?nay  make  thent  to  perish,  and  entirely 
blot  them  out  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 

'*  And  if  you  should  think  it  expedient,  that  all  the  faithful  in 
those  places  should  carry  the  salutary  cross  on  their  hearts  and  on 
their  garments,  to  animate  them  to  fight  resolutely  against  these 
heretics,  to  cause,  preach,  and  publish  the  croisade  by  the  proper 
preachers  of  the  word  of  God,  and  to  grant  unto  those  who  take 
the  cross,  and  fight  against  these  heretics,  or  who  contribute 
thereunto,  the  privilege  of  gaining  a  plenary  indulgence,  and  the 
remission  of  all  their  si?is  once  ill  their  life,  and  likewise  at  the 
point  of  death,  by  virtue  of  the  commission  given  you  above; 
likewise  to  command,  upon  their  holy  obedience,  and  under  the 
pain  of  the  greater  excommimi cation,  all  fit  preachers  of  the  word 
of  God,  secular  and  regular,  of  whatever  order  they  be,  mendicants 
not  excepted,  exempt  and  nonexempf,  that  they  excite  and  inflame 
(excilare  ct  inflammare)  these  faithful  to  exterminate,  utterly  by 
force  and  by  arms  that  plague,  so  that  they  may  assemble  with  all 
their  strength  and  powers  for  repelling  the  common  danger;  fur- 
ther, to  absolve  those  who  take  the  cross,  fight,  or  contribute  to 
the  war,  from  all  ecclesiastical  sentences  and  pains,  whetlier  ge- 
neral or  particular,  by  which  they  may  in  any  manner  be  bound, 
excepting  those  which  shall  be  specially  inflicted  hereafter,  from 
which  the  offenders  are  only  to  be  loosed  by  previous  satisfaction, 
or  the  consent  of  the  party;  as  likewise  to  dispense  with  them  as 
to  any  irregularity  they  may  be  chargeable  with  in  divine  things, 
or  by  any  apostacy,  and  to  agree  and  compound  with  them  as  to 
goods  which  they  may  have  clandestinely  or  by  stealth  acquired,  or 
ivhich  they  dishonestly  or  doubtfully  possess,  applying  them  only 
for  the  support  of  the  expedition  for  extirpating  the  heretics;  in 
like  manner  to  commute  all  vows  whatever,  though  made  with  an 
oath,  of  pilgrimage,  abstinence,  and  others,  (excepting  only 
those  of  chastity,  of  entering   into  a  religious   life,  visiting  the 


184 

Holy  Land,  the  sepulchres  of  the  apostles,  and  the  church  of  St. 
James  in  Compostella;)  to  those  who  come  forth  to  this  warfare, 
or  who   contribute  thereto,  or  who  only  give  as  much  as  the  per- 
formance of  their   vows  of  pilgrimage   might   probably  have  cost 
them,  having  a  respect  to   the   distance  of  the   places,  and  the 
condition  of  the  persons,  according  as  shall  appear  proper  to  you, 
or  to  the  confessors  deputed  by  you  for  that  purpose  ;  in  the  mean 
time  to   choose,   appoint,   and   confirm,  in  our  name,  and  in  the 
name  of  the  Romish   church,  one  or  more  captains  or  leaders  of 
the  war  over  the  crossed   soldiers,  and  the  army  to  be  convened, 
and  to  enjoin  and  command,  that  they  undertake  that  charge,  and 
faithfully  acquit   themseh^es   in  it  for  the  honour  and  defence  of 
the  faith,  and  that  all  the   rest  be  obedient  to  him  or  them  ;  to 
grant,  further,  to  every  one  of  them  a  permission  to  seize  and  free- 
ly possess  the  goods  of  the  heretics  whether  moveable  or  inunoveable, 
and  to  give  them,  for  a  prey,  whatever  the  heretics  have  brouglu 
to  the  lands  of  the  Catholics,  or,  on  the  contrary,  have  taken  or 
caused  to  be  taken  from  them  ;  to  command   likewise   all   those 
who  are  in  the  service  of  the  said   heretics,  wherever  they  be,  to 
depart  from  them  within  a  limited  time  which  you  shall  prescribe 
to  them,  under  whatever  pains  you  shall  judge  proper;  to  admon- 
ish  and   require  them,  and  all  persons,  ecclesiastical  or  secular, 
of  whatever  dignity,  age,  sex,  or  order  they  be,  under  the  pains 
of  excommunication,    suspension    and    interdict,    reverently    to 
obey  and  observe  the   apostolical   mandates,  and  to  abstain  from 
all  commerce  with  the  aforesaid   heretics  ;  and,  by  the  same  au- 
thority, to  declare,  that  they  and  all   others,  whoever   they  be, 
who  may  be  bound  and  obliged  by  contract,  or  in  any  other  man- 
ner whatever,  to  assign  or  pay  any  thing  to  them,  shall  not  hence- 
forth be  obliged  to  do  so,  nor  can  they  be  compelled  in  any  man- 
ner of  way  to  it;  moreover,  to  deprive  all  those  who  do  not  obey 
your  admonitions  and    mandates,  of  whatever  dignity,  state,  de- 
gree, order,  or  pre-eminence  they  be,  ecclesiastics  of  their   dig- 
nities, offices,  and  benefices,  and  secular  persons  of  their  honours, 
titles,  fiefs,  and  privileges,  if  they  persist  in   their  disobedience 
and   rebellion  ;  and  to  confer  their  benefices  on  others  whom  you 
shall  account   worthy  of  them,  and  even   on  those  who  may  be 
already  possessed  of,  or  expecting  any  other  ecclesiastical   bene- 
fices, in   whatever  number,  or   of  whatever  quality  soever  they 
may  be;  and  to  declare  these  deprived  as  aforesaid,  for  ever  infa- 
mous, and  incapable,  for  the  time  to  come,  of  obtaining  the  like 
or   any  others;  and  to  fulminate  all  sorts  of  censures,  according 
as  justice,  rebellion,  or  disobedience,  shall  appear  to  you  to  re- 
quire;  to   inflict  an  interdict,  and,  when   inflicted,  either  to  re- 
move it  finally,  or  only  to  suspend  it  for  a  time,  according  as  it 
may  be  found   expedient,  on  good  reasons  and  consideration,  as 
you   may  know  to  be  useful  and  necessary  ;   but  chiefly  on  those 
days  on  which  perhaps   indulgences  are  to  be  published,  or  the 


185 

croisade  to  be  preached  ;  and  to  proceed  directly  and  simpliciter^ 
without  the  noise  and  form  of  justice,  having  only  regard  to  truth, 
against  those  who  carry  to  these  heretics,  or  their  accomplices, 
provisions,  arms,  or  other  things  prohibited,  and  other  aiders, 
abettors,  advisers,  or  entertainers  of  them,  whether  open  or  se- 
cret, or  who  by  any  means*  hinder  or  disturb  the  execution  of  such 
a  salutary  enterprise  ;  and  to  declare  all  and  every  one  of  the 
transgressors  to  have  incurred  the  censures  and  pains,  both  spi- 
ritual and  temporal,  which  are  inflicted,  of  right,  upon  those  who 
do  such  things  ;  as  also  to  restore  and  absolve  those  who  are  peni- 
tent, and  willing  to  return  again  to  the  bosom  of  the  church  as 
formerly,  even  though  they  should  have  taken  an  oath  to  favour 
the  heretics,  or  had  received  their  pay  to  fight  for  them,  or  had 
supplied  them  with  arms,  succours,  victuals,  and  other  things 
forbidden  ;  providing  they  promise  by  taking  an  oath  of  a  different 
kind,  or  otherwise  give  sufficient  security,  that  for  the  time  to 
come  they  will  obey  our  mandates,  those  of  the  church  and  yours, 
whether  they  be  communities,  universities,  or  particular  persons, 
of  whatever  state,  order  or  pre-eminence  they  be,  or  in  whatever 
dignity,  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  they  may  be  elevated  ;  and  to  re- 
establish and  put  them  in  possession  of  their  honours,  dignities, 
offices,  benefices,  fiefs,  goods,  and  other  rights,  of  which  they 
were  formerly  possessed  ;  and,  injine^  to  concede,  disjwse,  esta- 
blish, ordain,  command,  and  execute,  all  and  every  other  mat- 
ters necessary  or  in  any  respect  conducive  to  this  salutary  business, 
even  though  they  should  be  such  as  require  a  particular  order, 
and  are  not  comprehended  in  your  general  commission;  and  to 
check  and  restrain  all  opposers  thereof,  by  ecclesiastical  censures, 
and  other  suitable  and  lawful  remedies,  without  regard  to  any 
appeal  whatever;  and,  if  need  be,  to  ccdl  into  your  assistance  the 
aid  of  the  secular  arm.  And  our  will  is,  that  all  privileges,  ex- 
emptions, apostolical  letters,  and  indulgences  of  any  kind,  grant- 
ed by  us,  in  general  or  particular,  or  in  manner  aforesaid,  under 
any  form  of  words  or  expressions,  shall  be  held  void,  and  as  let- 
ters not  granted,  so  far  as  they  are  inconsistent  with,  and  tend 
to  hinder  or  retard  these  presents,  we  hereby  deprive  them  of  all 
force,  together  with  all  other  things  whatever  that  are  contrary, 
though  the  Holy  See  should  have  granted  to  any,  either  general- 
ly or  particularly,  that  they  could  not  be  interdicted,  suspended 
or  excommunicated  and  deprived  of  their  dignities  and  benefices, 
or  smitten  with  any  other  apostolical  pain,  if  in  the  apostolical 
letters  there  be  not  full  and  express  mention  made,  word  for  word, 
of  such  an  indulgence. 

"  Thou,  therefore,  my  dearly  beloved  son,  undertaking  with  a 
devout  mind  the  charge  of  such  a  meritorious  work,  show  yourself 
diligent,  solicitous  and  careful  in  word  and  deed  to  execute  it,  so 
that,  from  your  labours  attended  with  the  divine  favour  and  grace, 
the  expected  success  and  fruits  may  folloiv,  and  that  by  your  so- 

24 


ISG 

licilude  you  may  not  only  merit  for  reward  the  glory  ivhich  is 
bestowed  on  those  who  are  employed  in  designs  and  affairs  of 
piety r  but  also  that  you  may  obtain,  and  not  undeservedly,  the 
more  abundant  commendations  from  us,  and  from  the  Apostolie 
See,  on  account  of  your  inost  exact  diligence  and  faithful  inte- 
grity. And,  because  it  may  be  difficult  to  transmit  these  present 
letters  to  all  places  where  they  may  be  necessary,  we  will,  and  by 
apostolical  authority  appoint,  that  to  a  copy  which  may  be  taken 
and  subscribed  by  the  hand  of  any  public  notary,  and  attested  by  the 
subscription  of  any  ecclesiastical  prelate,  entire  faith  may  be  given, 
and  that  it  should  be  held  as  valid,  and  the  same  regard  paid  to 
it  as  to  the  original  letters,  if  they  had  been  produced  and  shown. 
Given  at  Rome,  ai  St.  Peter's,  in  the  year  of  the  incarnation  of 
our  Lord  1487,  the  5th  of  the  kal.  of  May,  in  the  3d  year  of  our 
pontificate." 

Such  is  the  document!  Has  earth  ever  seen  such  outrages? 
Did  heathen  Rome  herself  ever  issue  and  enforce  such  edicts  of 
blood  and  terror,  as  "  Holy  Mother  Church"  belched  forth  upon 
the  trembling  tribes  of  men  as  they  melted  before  her  wrath  ? 
Well  did  the  Fifth  Council  of  Lateran,  1516,  Session  llth,  forbid 
her  priests  **  on  any  account  to  'presume  to  fix,  or  in  their  sermons 
assert,  any  certain  time  of  the  evils  to  come,  or  of  the  coming  of 
Anti-Christ"  (Tempus  quoque  praefixum  futurorum  malorum,  vel 
Antechristi  adventum  .  . .  .  praedicate,  vel  asserrere,  nequaquani 
prsBsumant.)  The  denial  of  Mr.  Hughes  is  its  own  best  comment 
on  the  character  of  Papism,  and  ihe  means  of  its  defence. 

We  see  in  this  decree  from  the  head  of  the  church,  the  claim  of 
power  over  all  things  temporal  and  spiritual,  as  having  charge 
from  God  to  govern  his  flock  by  such  means.  The  inquisition  is 
here  authoritatively  set  up  in  the  dominions  of  a  foreign  prince  ; 
kings  invoked  to  sustain  the  work  of  crushing  the  vipers,  the  he- 
retics— in  the  name  of  their  baptism,  and  of  the  faith,  and  of  God'; 
Archbishops,  and  other  ministers  of  peace  and  love,  Ordered  to  take 
up  arms  against  them,  and  tread  them  down,  and  exterminate  them  ; 
and  all  to  unite  in  blotting  them  from  the  earth.  We  have  also,  as 
usual,  the  ''plenary  indulgence'^ for  murdering  by  wholesale :  and 
the  good  morals  of "  compounding'"  with  thieves  and  robbers,  so  as  to 
apply  the  goods  fraudulently  gotten,  to  the  extirpation  of  heretics  ; 
also  "  coinmuting  vows,  though  made  with  an  ocdh,'''  for  those  who 
aid  the  crusade  by  hand  or  purse,  and  the  like  holy  things,  show- 
ing how  "  Holy  Mothef  loVed  heaven  and  the  rights  of  men  I 
This  document  alone  is  enough  to  settle  the  question  at  issue, 
with  every  candid  nian.  The  only  possible  apology  which  is  at- 
tempted for  this  diaboliccd  instrument  is,  that  these  heretics  (Wal- 
DENSES  TOO,  SO  that  it  was  not  only  the  Albigenses  whom  the 
popes  slaughtered,)  were  public  enemies  of  all  Catholics,  and  of 
all  states.  This,  if  wholly  true,  (it  is  ivholly  false)  is  in  fact,  giv- 
ing up  the  question  in  debate ;  for  it  is  saying,  that  according  to 


187 

the. Catholic  religion,  whenever  a  people  arise  in  any  country,  who 
are  thought  at  Rome  to  be  public  enemies  to  all  Catholics  and  all 
governments,  then  the  Pope  may  order  their  extermination  by  a 
crusade, — no  matter  whether  in  France,  Portugal,  or  Italy, — whe- 
ther in  Europe  or  America!  This  is  no  less  than  claiming  uni- 
versal supremacy  over  church  and  state  everywhere,  for  the  support 
of  the  Catholic  faith.  It  is  claiming  the  right  in  the  name  of 
God,  and  as  head  of  His  church,  to  put  men  to  death  (or  which  is 
tlie  same  thing,  orr/tr  it  to  be  done)  for  crimes  against  the  state, 
and  departure  from  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  church. 

While  Mr.  Hughes  gives  it  as  his  opinion,  that  the  Rojnan 
Catholic  religion  is  not  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  we 
may  surely  ask  what  other  and  abler  men  say,  even  allowing  that 
they  only  give  their  opinion  of  Catholic  doctrine  on  this  subject. 
And  if  the  Pope  of  Rome  should  endorse  such  opinions,  (which 
he  has  never  done  for  Mr.  Hughes's  opinion)  then  the  testimony 
would  seem  conclusive  in  favour  of  the  truth  of  these  opinions. 
Now,  suppose  Cardinal  Bellarmine  to  be  in  priest  Hughes's  place, 
and  discussing  this  question,  and  should,  under  the  Pope's  sanc- 
tion, argue  for  the  fact  and  'the  right  of  persecution,  in  the  follow- 
ing terms: —  (I) 

"That  heretics  condemned  by  the  church  may  be  pu- 
nished WITH  temporal  penalties,  and  even  with  death. 
We  will  briefly  show  that  the  church  has  the  power,  and  it  is 
HER  duty,  to  cast  off  incorrigible  heretics,  especially  those  who 
have  relapsed,  and  that  the  secular  power  ought  to  inflict 

ON     SUCH     TEMPORAL     PUNISHMENTS,     AND     EVEN     DEATH     ITSELF.        Ist, 

This  may  be  proved  from  the  Scriptures.  2d.  It  is  proved 
from  the  opinions  and  laws  of  the  emperors  which  the  church  has 
always  approved.  3d.  It  is  proved  by  the  laws  of  the 
CHURcii.  4th.  It  is  proved  by  the  testimony  of  the  fathers. 
Lastly.  It  is  proved  from  natural  reason.  For,  first ;  it  is  owned 
by  all,  that  heretics  7nay  of  right  be  excommunicated — of  course 
they  tnay  be  put  to  death.  This  consequence  is  proved  because 
excommunication  is  a  greater  punishment  than  temporal  death. 
Secondly;  experience  proves  that  there  is  no  other  remedy; 
for  the  church  has,  step  by  step,  tried  all  remedies  ;  1st,  exconi' 
mumcation  alone ;  then  pecuniary  ^ewa/^^es  ;  afterwards,  banish- 
ment ;  and  lastly,  has  been  forced  to  put  them  to  death, 
TO  send  them  to  their  own  place.  Thirdly  ;  all  allow  that 
forgery  deserves  death,  but  heretics  are  guilty  o^  forgery  of  the 
Word  of  God.  Fourthly ;  a  breach  of  faith  by  man  toward 
God,  is  a  greater  sin  than  of  a  wife  with  her  husband.  But  a 
woman's  unfaithfulness  is  punished  ivith  death  ;  why  not  a  he- 
retic's? Fifthly;  there  are  three  grounds  on  which  reason 
shows  that  heretics  should  be  put  to  death.     The  first,  is,  lest  the 

(1)  Chap.  XXI.  Lib.  iii.  On  Laity. 


188 

wicked  should  injure  the  righteous;  second,  that  by  the  punish- 
-ment  of  a  few,  many  may  be  reformed.     For  many  who  were 

MADE  TORPID  BY  IMPUNITY  ARE  ROUSED  BY  THE  FEAR  OF  PU- 
NISHMENT;    AND     THIS    WE      DAILY    SEE     IS     THE    RESULT    WHERE 

THE  INQUISITION  FLOURISHES.  Finally  ;  it  is  a  benefit  to  obsti- 
nate heretics  to  remove  them  from  this  life,  for  the  longer  they 
live  the  more  errors  they  invent^  the  more  persons  they  mislead  ; 
and  the  greatest  damnation  do  they  treasure  up  to  themselves. 


"  Chapter  XXII. —  Objections  Answered. 

*'  It  remains  to  answer  the  objections  of  Luther  and  other  here- 
tics. Argument  1st,  From  the  History  of  the  Church  at 
Large.  The  Church,  says  Luther,  from  the  beginning  even  to 
this  time,  has  never  burned  a  heretic.  TJierefore  it  does 
not  seem  to  be  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  they  should  be 
burned!  I  reply.  This  argument  admirably  proves,  not  the  sen- 
timent, but  the   ignorance  or  impudence  of  Luther.     For  as 

ALMOST    AN    INFINITE    NUMBER  WERE  EITHER  BURNED  OR  OTHERWISE    PUT 

TO  DEATH,  Luther  either  did  not  know  it,  and  was  therefore 
ignorant;  or,  if  he  knew  it,  he  is  convicted  of  impudence  and 
falsehood,  for  that  heretics  were  often  burned  by  the  church,  may 
be  proved  by  adducing  a  few  from  many  examples.  {He  instances, 
Donatists,  Manicheans,  and  Albigenses.) 

"  Argument  2d,  Experience  shows  that  terror  is  not  useful 
(in  such  cases).  I  reply,  experience  proves  the  contrary 
— for    the   donatists,  manicheans,  and   albigenses,  were   routed 

AND    annihilated    BY    ARMS. 

"  Argument  13th.  The  Lord  attributes  (says  the  Protestant) 
to  the  church,  the  sword  of  the  Spirit  ivhich  is  the  Word  of  God, 
but  not  the  material  sivord.  Nay,  he  said  to  Peter,  who  wished 
to  defend  him  with  a  material  sword,  *  put  up  thy  sword  into  the 
scabbai^d :''  John  xviii.  I  answer:  As  the  church  has  eccle- 
siastical  and    secular   princes,  who   are  her  two  arms,  so  she 

HAS  two  swords,  THE  SPIRITUAL  AND  MATERIAL;  AND  THEREFORE 
WHEN  HER  right  HAND  IS  UNABLE  TO  CONVERT  A  HERETIC  WITH  THE 
SWORD  OF  THE  SpiRIT,  SHE  INVOKES  THE  AID  OF  THE  LEFT  HAND,  AND 
COERCES    HERETICS    V.'ITH    THE    MATERIAL    SWORD. 

"  Argument  18th.  The  Apostles  (says  the  Protestant)  never 
invoked  the  secular  arm  against  heretics.  Answer  (according  to 
St.  Augustine,  in    Letter  50,  and    elsewhere)  ;   The  apostles 

DID  IT  not,  BECAUSK  THERE  WAS  NO  CHRISTIAN  PRINCE  WHOM  THEY 
COULD  CALL  ON  FOR  AID.  BUT  AFTERWARDS,  IN  CoNSTANTINE's  TIME, 
THE    church    CALLED    IN    THE    AID    OF    THE    SECULAR    ARM." 

Luther  denied  that  the  true  church  had  ever  burned  a  heretic. 
He  often  convicts  the  Church  of  Rome  of  such  acts.  Bellarmine 
here  frankly  avows  persecution,  yea,  the  right  and  the  duty  of 


189 

THE  CHURCH  TO  PUT  HERETICS  TO  DEATH,  and  plcads  the  Scfip- 
ture  for  the  authority;  and  appeals  to  history  for  the  fact  that  the 
church  had  put  to  death,  before   his  day,  *'  almost  an  infinite 

NUMBER." 

It  is  this  same  writer  who  thus  explains  the  stillness  and  peace 
of  Catholics  where  they  are  not  the  majority  of  a  community,  in  the 
very  next  chapter.  "  But  when  in  reference  to  heretics,  thieves, 
and  OTHER  WICKED  MEN,  there  shall  arise  this  question  in  par- 
ticular,  *  shall  they  be  exterminated?'  it  is  to  be  considered 
according,  to  the  meaning  of  our  Lord,  whether  that  can  be  done 
luithout  injury  to  the  good,  and  if  that  be  possible,  they  are  ivithout 
DOUBT  TO  BE  EXTIRPATED  ;  but  if  that  bc  uot  possiblc,  either  be- 
cause they  be  not  sufficiently  known,  and  then  there  would  be  dan- 
ger of  punishing  the  innocent,  instead  of  the  guilty  ;  or  because 

THEY  are  stronger  THAN  OURSELVES,  AND  THERE  BE  DANGER,  LEST 
IF  WE  MAKE  A  WAR  UPON  THEM,  MORE  OF  OUR  PEOPLE  THAN  OF 
THEIRS    SHOULD    BE    SLAIN,  THEN    WE    MUST    KEEP   QUIET." 

Hence,  in  the  United  States,  we  may  expect  life  while  we  have" 
numbers.  You  see,  gentlemen,  what  our  friends  at  Rome  (not 
priests  but  cardinals,  whose  works  are  sanctioned  by  the  Pope, 
and  in  this  case  a  nepliew  of  the  Pope)  think  of  the  rights  of  mi- 
norities! they  are  summed  up  in  this — they  may  die  by  the  hands 
of  papists  ! 

Now,  with  these  declarations  of  a  great  cardinal,  we  may  com- 
pare the  bulls  of  popes,  and  decrees  of  councils,  already  adduced 
— and  see  how  forcibly  they  illustrate  and  confirm  each  other. 

One  of  the  most  striking  proofs  of  the  opposition  of  popery,  as 
a  system,  to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  is  found  in  the  interference 
of  the  popes  as  the  avowed  head  of  the  church,  ivith  sovereign 
states  of  Europe.  There  was  scarcely  a  form  of  oppression  which 
they  did  not  practice,  or  a  right,  civil  or  religious,  on  which  they 
did  not  encroach.  A  system  is  often  best  known  by  its  practical 
operation;  and  when  the  effect  is  not  only  such  as  the  system 
might  be  expected  to  produce,  but  such  as  the  system  fearlessly 
avows,  no  one  can  refuse  to  it  a  character  which  it  openly  assumes. 
What  follows  will  explain  itself. 

We  present  to  our  readers  a  chapter  from  Du  Pin,  a  Roman  Ca- 
tholic historian,  which  gives  a  most  striking  picture  of  the  spirit  of 
papism  in  the  17th  century.  It  is  a  detailed  history  of  an  outra- 
geous assault  made  by  the  Pope  on  the  Republic  of  Venice.  For 
the  fidelity  of  the  narrative  we  have  not  merely  the  character  of 
Du  Pin,  (who  as  a  papist  would  hardly  do  the  Pope  injustice)  but 
the  confirmation  of  cotenxporary  writers.  The  events  are  too  no- 
torious to  be  denied,  at  least  in  their  essential  parts.  It  may  be 
proper  here  to  say  a  word  of  the  Interdict  which  the  Pope  fulmi- 
nated against  the  State  of  Venice,  for  daring  to  assert  rights  which 
are  inseparable  from  every  government,  and  which  no  ruler  but 
the  Pope  ever  had  the  audacity  to  question. 


190 

The  papal  Ititerdict  was  designed  to  slmt  Heaven  against  the 
offending  people  ;  and  to  expose  them  as  heathen  to  the  wrath  of 
God  until  they  submitted  to  the  Pope.  I  have  before  me  a  large 
folio,  Jus  EccLESiASTicuM  Universum  J  or  The  Universal  Eccle- 
siastical Law  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  which  a  whole  chapter  is 
taken  up  on  the  nature,  form,  force,  &c.  &.c.  of  an  Interdict.  The 
following  is  a  part  of  the  form  there  given,  which  has  been  often 
used  in  other  days  and  other  lands. 

**  Bind  the  whole  land  of with  the  bond  of  public  excom- 
munication, so  that  no  one,  except  a  clergyman,  or  poor  mendi- 
cant, or  stranger,  or  infant  of  two  years  or  under,  be  allowed  bu- 
rial in  the  whole  territory .     No  one  shall  be  permitted  to 

marry  a  wife,  or  to  salute  another ;  nor  clergy,  nor  laity,  nor  inha- 
bitants, nor  strangers  in  ail  the  land  shall.be  permitted  to  eat  flesh 
or  any  other  food,  except  what  is  allowed  in  Lent,  while  the  In- 
terdict continues.  Let  no  layman  or  clergyman  be  shorn  of  his 
hair  or  shaven,  until  the  rulers  are  subdued,  and  the  leaders  of 
the  people  are  made  obedient.  But  if  any  one  shall  be  detected 
in  the  violation  of  this  bond,  in  any  way,  he  shall  not  be  restored 
without  condign  punishment." 

This  is  a  part  of  the  terrific  sentence  passed  by  the  Pope  only 
two  centuries  ago,  against  a  sovereign  state,  and  that  a  republic, 
over  which  he  had  no  more  right  to  lord  it,  than  over  our  own. 

Now,  I  ask,  why  should  the  minions  of  the  Pope  in  the  United 
States  be  believed  when  they  talk  of  liberty?  Can  any  man  be- 
lieve the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes,  when  he  pj'ofesses  to  be  subject  to  the 
Pope,  and  yet  love  liberty  1  One  or  other  of  these  must  be  given 
up.  Let  Mr.  Hughes  tell  us  why  in  the  I7th  century  the  Pope 
oppressed  Venice,  and  yet  in  the  19th  century  spares  us  ? 

The  History  of  the  Interdict  of  Venice,  fulminated  by  Pope 
Paul  V.  (1) 
"  The  difference  of  the  Republic  of  Venice  with  Paul  V.  is  one 
of  the  most  important  points  of  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  se- 
venteenth century  ;  not  only  by  reason  on  the  subject  of  the  dis- 
pute, but  also  much  more  on  account  of  the  great  number  of 
questions  which  were  agitated  on  occasion  of  that  difference,  by 
the  most  able  divines  and  lawyers  of  that  time.  The  Senate  of 
Venice  made  two  decrees  in  the  beginning  of  that  century  ;  by 
the  first  of  which  it  was  forbidden  under  severe  penalties,  to  build 
hospitals  or  monasteries,  or  to  establish  new  convents  or  societies 
in  the  State  of  Venice,  without  the  permission  of  the  senate.  By 
the  other,  which  was  made  the  26th  March,  1605,  a  law  made  in 
1536  was  renewed,  confirmed  and  extended  over  all  parts 'of  the 
State,  forbidding  all  the  subjects  of  the  republic  to  sell,  alienate, 

(1)  From  Du  Pin's  Ecclesiastical  History,  Vol.  viii.  Book  ii.  Chap.  1.   Cen- 
tury 17th. 


191 

or  (lispose  in  any  manner  whatsoever,  of  immoveable  goods  in  per- 
petuity, in  favour  of  ecclesiastical  persons,  without  the  consent  of 
the  senate  :  upon  condition  nevertheless,  that  if  any  legacies  of 
immoveable  goods  Were  bequeathed,  those  goods  should  be  sold 
within  two  years  after,  and  the  purchase  given  to  discharge  those 
legacies.     There  happened  at  the  same  time  two  criminal  affairs, 
which  concerned  the  ecclesiastics.     Scipion  Sarrasin,  canon  of 
Vicenza,  who  had  taken  off  the  seal  of  the  magistrates,  affixed  to 
the  Episcopal  chancery,  at  the  request  of  the  chancellor,  the  see 
being  vacant,  was  seized  by  the  senate,  and  put  into  prison  for 
having  insulted  one  of  his  kinswomen,  whom   he  intended  to  de- 
bauch;  and  some  time  after.  Count  Baldolin  Valde-marino,  Abbot 
Feveza,  being  accused  of  many  enormous  crimes,  (1)  was  impri- 
soned by  order  of  the  senate.     The  Pope  Paul  V,  being  persua- 
ded that  the  decrees  and  enterprises  against  the  clergy,  encroached 
upon  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  complained  of  them  to  the  am- 
bassador of  Venice,  and  demandj^d  of  the  senate  by  his  nuncio, 
that  the  decrees  should  be  revofeled  immediately,  and  the  ecclesi- 
astics, imprisoned   by  the  authority  of  the  senate,  delivered  into 
the   hands  of  his  nuncio,  to  be  tried    by  ecclesiastical  judges; 
threatening  to  interdict  the  republic,  if  he  was  not  obeyed  imme- 
diately.     The  senate  answered,  the  1st  of  December,  1605,  that 
they  could  not  release  prisoners  accused  of  crime  which  belong  to 
the  recognizance  of  the  secular  judges,  nor  revoke  the  laws  which 
they  had  a  right  to  make,  and  which  they  believed  necessary  for 
the  good  of  the  state.     The  Pope,  having  received  this  answer  by 
letters  from  his  nuncio,  and  by  word  of  mouth  from  the  ambassa- 
dor of  Venice  despatched  on  the  10th  of  December  two  Briefs  ; 
the  one  addressed  to  Marin  Grimani,  Doge  of  Venice,  and   the 
other  to  the  republic  by  way  of  monitory,  exhorting  the  state  to 
revoke  their  decrees,  which  he  thought  contrary  to  the  canons, 
and  prejudicial  to  the  liberties  of  the  church  ;  declaring  that  they 
who  made  these  laws,  or  caused  them  to  be  executed,  had  incurred 
ecclesiastical  censures,  from  which  they  could  not  be  freed  but 
by  revoking  those  statutes,  and  re-establisliing  affairs  in  their  for- 
mer state.     He  commanded  them  under  the  penalty  of  excommu- 
nication, latm  SententicB,  to  revoke  them,  which,  if  they  refused, 
he  protested  that  he  should  be  obliged  to  put  in  execution  the  pe- 
nalties annexed  to  such  offences,  without  any  other  citation;  being 
not  willing  that  God  should  call  him  to  account  one  day  for  having 
thus  failed  in  his  duty  ;  and  not  being  able  to  dissemble,  when  he 
saw  the  authority  of  the  holy  Apostolic  See  infringed,  the  eccle- 
siastical immunities  trampled  under  foot,  the  canons  and  holy  de- 
crees neglected,  and  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  church  sub- 
verted." 

The  Pope  sent  these  briefs  to  his  nuncio  at  Venice,  with  orders 

(1)  Oppression,  incest  with  his  sister,  and  murder. 


192 

"to  present  and  publish  them,  and  acquainted  the  cardinals  in  a 
consistory  held  the  12th  of  that  month,  with  the  subject  of  com- 
plaint he  had  against  the  republic  of  Venice,  and  with  what  he 
had  done  thereupon.  Nevertheless  the  republic  appointed  Leo- 
nardo Dona  to  procurator  of  St.  Mark,  to  go  express,  and  treat  of 
this  affair  in  the  quality  of  ambassador  at  Rome.  The  nuncio 
not  having  received  those  briefs  till  the  day  after  Donato  had  been 
chosen  Ambassador,  thought  he  ought  to  put  off  the  publication 
of  them,  and  wrote  to  the  Pope,  who  ordered  him  to  present  them. 
The  nuncio  received  this  order  on  Christmas-eve,  and  presented, 
the  day  following,  the  briefs  to  the  counsellors  assembled  to  assist 
at  a  solemn  mass,  in  the  absence  of  the  Doge  Griniani,  who  was 
extremely  ill,  and  died  the  day  following.  His  death  was  the  rea- 
son why  the  briefs  were  not  opened,  the  Senate  having  ordered 
that  no  affair  should  be  transacted,  but  that  of  the  election  of  a 
doge.  The  Pope  on  his  side  wrote  to  the  nuncio,  to  protest  to  the 
Senate  that  they  ought  not  to  proceed  to  a  new  election,  because 
it  would  be  null,  as  made  by  excommunicated  persons.  The  nun- 
cio pressingly  demanded  audience  to  make  this  declaration  ;  but 
the  Senate  would  not  give  it  him,  it  being  not  customary  to  re- 
ceive any  memorials  from  the  ministers  of  foreign  princes  during 
the  interregnum,  but  compliments  of  condolence.  The  electors 
were  not  a  long  time  in  choosing  a  new  doge.  The  10th  of  Janu- 
ary 1606,  Leonardo  Donato  was  advanced  to  that  high  dignity. 
Ail  the  ambassadors  went  immediately,  according  to  custom,  to 
visit  the  new  doge,  and  pay  him  their  compliments.  But  the 
nuncio  would  not  visit  him.  The  doge  did  not  omit  writing  to 
the  Pope  according  to  custom,  to  notify  his  election  to  him;  and 
the  Pope  received  his  letter.  The  first  affair  which  was  transacted 
at  Venice  after  the  election  of  the  doge,  was  the  difference  of  the 
republic  with  the  Pope.  It  began  with  nominating  the  Chevalier 
Duodo  in  the  place  of  Leonardo  Donato  (who  was  elected  doge) 
ambassador  at  Rome.  After  this  the  briefs  were  opened  ;  and 
when  the  Senate  saw  what  they  contained,  before  they  returned 
an  answer  to  the  Pope  they  determined  to  have  the  advice  of  some 
divines  and  lawyers.  The  lawyers  whom  they  principally  consult- 
ed were  Erasmus  Gratian  of  Udina,  and  Mark  Antonio  Pellegrin 
of  Padua;  and  the  famous  Fra-Paolo  Sarpi  of  the  order  of  the 
Servites,  was  appointed  the  divine  of  the  republic.  It  was  also 
resolved  not  only  to  consult  the  doctors  of  the  university  of  Padua 
and  of  Venice,  but  also  the  most  able  lawyers  of  Italy  and  Europe, 
who  sent  them  their  opinions,  with  the  laws  of  the  other  kingdoms 
and. churches  of  Christendom,  which  had  any  relation  to  the  affair 
in  question.  Then  the  Senate,  after  having  understood  the  opin- 
ion of  the  doctors,  returned  this  answer  to  the  Pope  the  2Sth  of 
January  :  *'  That  they  heard  with  a  great  deal  of  grief  and  as- 
tonishment, by  letters  from  his  holiness,  that  he  had  condemned 
the  laws  of  the  republic,  (observed   with  success  for  many  ages, 


193 

and  with  which  his  predecessors  had  found  no  fault)  as  contrary 
to  the  authority  of  the  holy  apostolic  see  ;  and  that  he  regarded 
those  who  had  made  them  (who  were  men  of  piety,  and  had  well 
deserved  of  the  see  of  Rome)  as  persons  who  broke  the  ecclesi- 
astical immunities;  that  according  to  the  admonition  of  his  holi- 
ness, they  had  caused  to  be  examined  their  ancient  and  modern 
laws,  and  that  they  had  found  nothing  in  them  which  could  not 
be  ordained  by  the  authority  of  a  sovereign  prince,  or  which- in- 
fringed on  the  power  of  the  Pope;  because  it  is  certain  that  it 
belongs  to  a  secular  prince  to  take  cognizance  of  all  societies 
which  are  founded  within  his  own  jurisdiction,  and  to  take  care 
that  no  edifices  may  be  raised  which  may  prejudice  the  public 
safety,  when  there  are  in  a  state  as  great  a  number  of  churches 
and  places  of  devotion  as  is  sufficient.  That  they  never  refused 
giving  leave  to  build  them;  the  republic  even  contributing  there- 
to very  liberally  on  her  part.  That  the  law  prohibiting  the  alien- 
ation of  the  goods  of  the  laity  for  ever  in  favour  of  the  ecclesias- 
tics, regarding  nothing  but  temporal  affairs,  it  cannot  be  pretended 
that  they  have  done  any  thing  by  that  against  the  canons.  That 
if  the  Popes  had  power  to  forbid  the  ecclesiastics  to  alienate  in 
-favour  of  secular  persons  the  goods  of  the  church  without  her  con- 
sent, it  might  be  lawful  for  princes  to  prohibit  seculars  a^so  to 
alienate  their's  in  favour  of  the  ecclesiastics  without  their  permis- 
sion. That  the  ecclesiastics  lose  nothing  by  their  decrees,  becairse 
they  receive  the  value  of  the  immovable  goods  which  are  given  or 
bequeathed  to  them.  That  this  alienation  weakening  the  state, 
is  not  less  prejudicial  in  spiritual  than  temporal  concernments. 
That  the  senate  cannot  believe  they  have  incurred  any  censure 
by  making  these  laws,  since  princes  have  by  a  divine  law,  from 
which  no  human  authority  can  derogate,  the  power  of  making 
laws  in  temporal  affairs.  That  the  admonitions  of  his  holiness 
have  no  effect  but  in  matters  that  are  purely  spiritual,  and  not  in  a 
temporal  atfair,  which  is  in  all  things  separate,  and  wholly  exempt 
from  the  pontifical  authority.  That  the  senate  does  not  believe 
his  holiness,  who  is  full  of  piety  and  religion,  will  persevere  with- 
out knowledge  of  the  cause,  in  his  menaces.  That  these  were  an 
abridgment  of  the  senate's  reasons,  which  their  extraordinary 
ambassador  would  give  him  to  understand  more  largely. 

*'  The  Pope  having  received  this  answer  of  the  Senate,  declared 
to  the  ambassador  that  he  could  not  relax  his  severity  if  they  did 
not  revoke  their  laws,  and  deliver  into  the  hands  of  his  nuncio 
the  prisoners.  He  complained  still  more  of  another  decree  they 
had  made  upon  the  emphytheoses,(l)  and  caused  his  complaints  to 
be  delivered  by  his  nuncio  to  the  senate.  As  he  knew  they  would 
give  him  no  satisfaction  thereupon  he  gave  orders  for  another 
brief  to  be   presented,  the    10th    of    December,  to  •  the  senate, 

(1)  A  term  of  law  Tor  a  long  lease,  from  ten  to  a  hundred  years. 
25 


194 

whereby  he  required  that  the  two  prisoners  should  be  delivered  to 
his  nuncio,  under  the  penalty  of  excommunication.  The  senate 
answered,  that  they  would  not  divest  themselves  of  the  right  which 
they  had  to  punish  the  crimes  of  their  subjects,  which  they  had 
always  enjoyed  from  the  establishment  of  their  state,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  sovereign  pontiffs.  The  extraordinary  ambassador  of 
the  republic  came  to  Rome,  and  represented  to  the  Pope  the  rea- 
sons of  their  proceedings  ;  but  nothing  was  able  to  move  his  ho- 
liness. He  caused  a  monitory  to  be  drawn  up  against  the  Repub- 
lic of  Venice,  and  having  communicated  it  to  the  cardinals  in 
consistory  the  I5th  of  April,  he  ordered  it  to  be  published  and 
fixed  up  in  the  public  places  at  Rome.  This  monitory  imported 
that  the  Senate  of  Venice  being  not  willing  to  revoke  the  laws 
which  they  had  made  in  prejudice  of  the  ecclesiastical  authority, 
nor  to  deliver  their  prisoners,  he  declared  these  laws  to  be  null,  and 
pronounced  the  doge  and  Republic  of  Venice  excommunicated, 
if  within  the  space  of  twenty-four  days,  to  begin  from  the  day  of 
the  publication,  they  did  not  revoke,  break,  and  annul  the  afore- 
said laws,  and  actually  deliver  the  canon  and  the  abbot  into  the 
hands  of  his  nuncio.  That  till  such  time  as  they  should  pay 
obedience  to  this  order,  he  forbade  them  to  bury  in  consecrated 
ground  those  who  happened  to  die  ;  and  that  if,  within  three  days 
after  the  twenty-four  were  expired,  they  did  not  comply,  he  laid 
the  whole  state  under  an  interdict;  and  forbade  all  masses  and 
divine  offices  to  be  celebrated,  except  in  such  cases  and  places  as 
were  privileged  by  common  law.  And  that  he  deprived  the  doge 
and  senate  of  all  the  goods  which  they  possessed  in  the  Roman 
ciiurch,  or  in  other  churches,  and  of  all  the  privileges  or  indultos 
which  they  had  obtained  from  the  holy  see,  and  especially  from 
those  which  they  had  to  proceed  against  clerks  in  certain  cases. 
The  monitory  was  addressed  to  the  patriarchs,  arch-bishops, 
bishops,  their  vicar-generals,  and  to  all  the  clergy,  secular  and 
regular,  having  ecclesiastical  dignity  in  the  State  of  the  Repub- 
lic of  Venice. 

"  The  senate  being  informed  that  the  monitorial  bull  was  pub- 
lished, recalled  their  extraordinary  ambassador  ;  forbade  all  ec- 
clesiastical prelates  to  publish  or  set  up  tlie  bull  of  the  Pope,  and 
commanded  that  all  they  who  had  copies  of  it  should  carry  them 
to  the  magistrates  of  Venice.  The  Pope  on  his  side  recalled  the 
nuncio  who  was  at  Venice,  and  dismissed  the  ordinary  ambassa- 
dor of  the  republic.  At  the  same  time  the  chiefs  of  the  council 
of  ten  sent  for  the  superiors  of  monasteries,  and  of  the  other 
churches  of  Venice,  and  declared  the  intention  of  their  sovereign 
to  be  that  they  should  continue  to  perform  the  divine  offices,  and 
that  no  one  should  leave  the  ecclesiastic  state  without  leave,  as- 
suring those  who  staid  of  protection  ;  and  declaring,  that  they 
who  departed  should  not  carry  with  them  any  of  the  goods  and 
ornaments  of  the  churches.     They  commanded  them,  in  case  any 


195 

brief  was  sent  to  them  from  Rome,  or  order  from  their  superiors, 
to  send  it  to  the  magistrates  before  they  read  it.  And  the  gover- 
nors of  all  the  cities  of  the  state  were  enjoined  to  give  the  same 
orders  in  the  places  of  their  jurisdiction.  The  superiors  immedi- 
ately all  promised  to  obey  the  orders  that  had  been  given  them, 
and  to  perform  divine  service  as  before.  A  council  was  held  upon 
what  was  proper  to  be  done  concerning  the  monitory  of  the  Pope  : 
Some  gave  their  advice  to  appeal  from  it,  as  many  princes,  and  the 
republic  itself  had  done  on  the  like  occasion.  But  others  believed 
there  was  no  occasion  for  having  recourse  to  this  remedy,  pretend- 
ing that  the  briefs  were  notoriously  null  of  themselves.  This 
opinion  was  followed,  and  nothing  was  done,  but  a  mandate  made 
in  the  name  of  the  doge,  addressed  to  all  the  ecclesiastics  of  the 
republic,  wherein  he  declared,  that  having  received  advice  of  the 
publication,  April  17th,  at  Rome,  of  a  certain  brief  fulminated 
against  him, and  the  senate,  and  sovereignty  of  Venice,  he  thought 
himself  obliged  to  employ  his  cares  in  maintaining  the  public 
tranquillity,  and  supporting  the  authority  of  the  prince.  That  he 
protested  before  God  he  had  not  omit'ted  any  means  of  informing, 
and  laying  before  the  Pope,  the  strong  and  convincing  reasons  of 
the  republic.  But  that  having  found  his  ears  closed,  and  seen  the 
brief  he  had  published  against  all  kind  of  reason  and  justice,  in 
opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  the  fathers  and 
canons,  and  to  the  prejudice  of  the  secular  authority  which  God 
has  bestowed  upon  sovereign  princes,  the  liberty  of  the  state  and 
the  public  repose,  and  to  the  great  scandal  and  offence  of  the 
whole  Christian  world  ;  he  held  that  brief  to  be  not  only  unjust, 
but  also  null,  unlawfully  fulminated  in  fact,  and  contrary  to  the 
rules  of  law,  and  that  he  would  use  the  same  remedies  which  his 
predecessors  and  other  princes  have  used  against  the  popes,  who 
abused  the  authority  which  God  had  given  them  to  edification,  and 
passed  the  bounds  of  their  power.  And  this  he  was  the  more 
inclined  to  do,  forasmuch  as  he  was  certain  that  this  brief  would 
be  looked  upon  in  the  same  light,  not  only  by  all  the  subjects  of 
the  republic,  but  also  by  the  whole  Christian  world.  That  he  was 
persuaded  they  would  continue,  as  before,  to  take  care  of  the  souls 
of  the  faithful,  and  to  perform  the  divine  offices,  being  fully  re- 
solved to  persevere  in  the  Catholic  and  apostolic  faith,  and  the 
respect  which  is  due  to  the  holy  Roman  church.  This  mandate, 
dated  the  6th  of  May,  1606,  was  immediately  published  and  set 
up  at  Venice,  and  in  all  the  cities  of  the  state. 

"  As  the  term  of  twenty-four  days  allowed  by  the  briefs  approach- 
ed, and  the  Jesuits,  who  had  received  particular  orders  from  the 
Pope,  showed  plainly,  that  they  were  inclined  to  observe  the  inter- 
dict, and  would  al  least  abstain  from  saying  of  mass,  they  were 
commanded  on  the  lOth  of  May,  to  give  an  express  declaration  of 
the  measures  they  designed  to  take.  They  acknowledged  then, 
that  they  could  not  celebrate  mass  during  the  interdict,  and  that  if 


196 

the  senate  obliged  them  to  do  it,  they  chose  rather  to  retire  from 
Venice.  Upon  this  answer,  the  senate  resolved  to  send  them 
away,  and  appointed  the  grand  Vicar  of  the  Patriarch  to  receive 
the  ornaments  of  their  churches,  and  gave  them  order  to  depart 
immediately.  They  went  out  tluit  evening,  carrying  each  of  them 
a  consecrated  host  about  their  necks;  and  being  put  into  two 
barks,  retired  to  Ferrara.  The  Jesuits  in  the  convents  which 
were  in  the  other  cities  of  the  republic  departed  also.  As  it  was 
manifest  that  the  Capuchins,  Theatins,  and  other  regulars,  after 
the  example  of  the  Jesuits,,  were  resolved  to  observe  the  interdict, 
the  senate  published  a  decree  the  last  day  of  the  terjn,  by  which 
all  those  who  refused  to  celebrate  the  divine  offices,  in  the  accus- 
tomed manner,  were  enjoined  to  retire  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  republic  ;  upon  which  the  Capuchins  and  Theatins  departed 
also,  and  the  other  Religious  were  placed  in  the  government  of 
their  churches.  The  Capuchins  of  the  Territories  of  Brescia  and 
Bergamo  stayed,  and  continued  to  perform  divine  offices,  like  the 
other  ecclesiastics,  secular  and  regular,  of  the  republic. 

"  The  nuncios  of  the  Pope  who  were  in  the  courts  of  Catholic 
Princes  of  Europe,  endeavoured  to  exclude  from  divine  service, 
the  ambassadors  and  envoys  of  Venice  ;  but  their  attempts  were 
fruitless.  They  continued  to  be  treated  as  they  used  to  be,  and 
were  admitted  to  pmyers,  assemblies,  and  the  ecclesiastic  ceremo- 
nies, as  heretofore,  in  France,  Spain,  Italy,  and  Poland.  The 
ambassador  of  the  republic  assisted  in  person  at  Vienna,  in  the 
first  solemn  procession  of  the  Holy  Sacrament,  which  was  made 
by  the  Jesuits.  But  the  nuncio,  who  was  not  present  for  fear  of 
meeting  the  ambassador,  gave  out  such  menaces,  that  the  am-» 
bassador  did  not  think  fit  to  be  present  at  the  two  following  ones. 
Though  the  interdict  was  not  observed  in  the  States  of  Venice,  it 
occasioned  tumults  and  seditions  in  several  places,  which  the  se- 
nate, having  attrilnited  to  the  suggestions  of  the  Jesuits,  made  a 
decree  the  14th  of  June,  whereby  they  declared,  that  the  Jesuits 
should  never  more  be  received  for  the  future  in  any  place  of  the 
State  of  Venice,  and  that  this  decree  should  never  be  revoked,  be- 
fore there  had  been  first  read  the  whole  process  in  presence  of  all 
the  senate,  which  should  be  composed  at  least  of  a  hundred  and 
four  score  senators,  and  unless  there  were  five  for  one  who  voted 
for  the  revocation. 

"  Nevertheless  the  Christian  princes  interposed  to  accommodate 
the  diffisrence  betwixt  the  Pope  and  the  Venitians.  But  these 
would  not  hear  any  proposition  of  accommodation,  before  the 
Pope  had  taken  away  the  interdict,  and  the  Pope  demanded  be- 
fore all  things  the  revocation  of  the  decrees.  The  ambassador  of 
the  most  Christian  king  exerted  himself  more  strongly  and  effica- 
ciously than  anyone  else  in  bringing  matters  to  an  accommodation^ 
and  at  length  effected  it.  The  king  of  Spain  assured  the  Pope 
that  he  would  assist  him  with  all  his  forces,  and  that  he  had  given 


197      . 

orders  for  that  purpose  to  his  ministers  in  Italy.  But  these  pro- 
mises had  no  other  effect,  than  to  retard  the  accommodation,  and 
had  like  to  have  kindled  a  war  in  Italy.  Some  unknown  persons 
having  set  up  in  the  State  of  Venice  a  placard  by  which  the  re- 
public was  exhorted  to  separate  herself  from  the  Roman  Church, 
the  senate  commanded,  that  search  should  be  made  after  the 
author  of  it,  and  protested  that  their  intention  was,  never  to  de- 
part from  the  Catholic  religion,  nor  the  obedience  due  to  the  Holy 
See.  They  published  afterwards  several  orders  to  maintain  a  war 
in  case  they  should  be  attacked.  The  Pope  on  his  side  solicited 
the  princes  of  Italy  to  put  himself  into  a  condition  to  attack  the 
Venitians,  or  to  defend  himself,  if  he  should  be  attacked  by  them. 
On  each  side  preparations  of  war  were  made,  but  the  dispute 
never  came  to  an  open  rupture.  It  was  not  so  in  the  war  which 
was  carried  on  by  the  pen,  for  a  very  great  number  of  writings 
were  published  on  both  sides,  with  heat,  vivacity,  and  learning. 
Though  the  affair  had  a  lowering  aspect,  and  all  things  threatened 
a  rupture,  the  ambassadors  of  France  did  not  cease,  nevertheless, 
to  negociate  an  accommodation." 

The  above  passage  from  a  Roman  Catholic  historian,  is  the 
narrative  of  a  transaction  which  is  full  of  interest  to  the  American 
people.  From  it  we  learn  that  the  Pope  only  two  centuries  ago, 
when  his  claims  were  asserted  without  disguise,  excommunicated 
a  whole  people,  for  daring  to  extend  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state 
to  the  punishment  of  ecclesiastics ,  to  the  erection  of  convents^ 
monasteries,  &c.  &c.  The  clergymen  were  arrested  by  order  of 
the  Republic  of  Venice,  the  one  for  debauch,  and  the  other  for 
incest  and  murder.  These  are  offences  against  the  state,  they 
are  cognizable  in  civil  courts,  and  in  them  alone.  The  courts  of 
the  church  cannot  inflict  temporal  punishment  or  try  civil  cases, 
without  infringing  the  liberty  of  the  state,  and  violating  the  order 
which  God  has  established.  No  Papist  will  venture  to  deny  this 
in  this  country,  though  in  Spain  and  Italy  it  is  far  otherwise.  But 
the  Pope  demanded  these  criminals  of  the  Republic,  to  be  tried 
by  him  in  his  ecclesiastical  court;  and  threatened  an  interdict  of 
the  Republic,  if  instant  obedience  was  not  showed  to  his  mandate! 
What  would  the  American  people  say  if  a  certain  priest  who  not 
many  years  since,  in  a  neighbouring  town,  attempted  a  similar 
offence  to  the  one  mentioned  above,  (instead  of  flying  the  country) 
had  been  arrested  by  the  civil  magistrate,  and  had  been  demanded 
by  the  Pope,  with  the  threat  of  an  interdict,  if  we  refused  to  give 
him  up? 

In  the  other  case,  the  Republic  forbade  convents,  monasteries, 
&LC,  &c.  to  be  erected  without  the  permission  of  the  senate,  and 
passed  salutary  laws  regulating  the  bestowing  of  property  on 
ecclesiastics.  Monasteries  were  filling,  and  ruling  the  land;  and 
the  clergy,  (as  in  South  America,  and  once  in  Great  Britain) 
were  getting  possession  of  the  wealth  and  even  the  soil  of  the 


198 

commonwealth.  These  salutary  laws  were  intended  to  restrict 
their  encroachments.  But  the  Pope  had  no  idea  of  permitting  a 
free  state  to  govern  his  subjects,  though  they  lived  in  that  state  ! 
Let  the  reader  refer  to  the  first  part  of  this  chapter  from  Dupin, 
and  then  read  these  remarks — and  he  will  see  how  the  Pope 
claims  temporal,  as  well  as  spiritual  power,  over  all  his  followers, 
everywhere. 

The  next  note  we  make  on  the  above  narrative  is  that  the  his- 
torian tells  how  faithful  the  Jesuits  (whom  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes 
so  much  admires  and  lauds)  were  to  the  Pope.  They  left  the  re- 
public, and  publicly  espoused  the  cause  of  the  Pope,  as  a  military 
foe,  against  their  native  and  free  state ! !  And  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance of  everyJesuit,  bishop  and  priest,  if  faithfully  observed, 
will  lead  to  the  same  results,  in  the  same  circumstances. 

Again:  "  The  Pope,''''  (says  our  Catholic  historian,)  "  solicited 
the  Princes  of  Italy  to  put  himself  into  a  condition  to  attack  the 
Vetiitians,  or  defend  himself  if  he  should  be  attacked  by  theni.^' 
A  very  Christian  attitude  truly  for  the  Head  of  the  Church! 
Heading  an  army  to  crush  a  republic!  And  that  for  daring  to 
punish  priests  who  had  been  guilty  of  incest  and  murder!  How 
would  it  sound  to  say — The  Apostle  Peter  raised  an  army  in  Je- 
rusalem to  rescue  James  from  prison?  Peter  once  did  try  the 
sword,  and  in  how  just  a  cause!  But  his  mB.ster  rebuked  him! 
"  Put  up  thy  sword;  they  that  use  the  sword  shall  perish  by  the 
sword."  Yet  this  is  the  vicar  of  Jesus  and  the  successor  of  Peter  ! 
The  Pope  is  indeed  the  successor  of  Peter  in  his  follies  and  sins 
— in  using  the  sword,  and  in  denying  his  Lord;  but  not  in  repen- 
tance, obedience,  and  the  ministerial  office. 


199 


"  Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  7^"^ 


NEGATIVE  v.— MR.  HUGHES. 


Mr.  President: — Nothing  is  more  disagreeable  than  to  be 
obliged  to  argue  with  a  man  who  trifles  with  those  rules  of  reason- 
ing, on  the  observance  of  which,  the  soundness  of  an  argument 
depends.  Logic  is  to  reasoning,  what  grammar  is  to  language, 
with  this  difference,  that  the  principles  of  logic  are  founded  in 
common  sense,  and  derive  but  little  authority  from  usage;  where- 
as, those  of  language  are  frequently  sustained  by  usage  alone. 
All  men  reason,  and  yet  there  are  {%\\  who  pay  attention  to  the 
rules  of  reasoning.  Now  I  will  take  up  the  prominent  points  of 
the  gentleman's  last  speech,  in  order  to  show  that  they  are  what 
logicians  term  '*  FALLACIES." 

FIRST.  What  had  he  undertaken  to  prove?  He  had  under- 
taken to  prove,  that  there  are  doctrines  in  the  Catholic  religion 
which  are  hostile  or  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty.  This 
is  Kis  proposition.  As  long  as  he  does  not  prove  this  proposition, 
he  beats  the  air.  But  what  are  we  to  understand  by  "  DOC- 
TRINE?" Any  '*  tejiet  of  faith  or  morals  which  Catholics  liold 
as  having  been  revealed  by  Almighty  God.'^  Consequently,  the 
first  step  to  be  taken,  is  to  select  the  "  doctrine."  If  it  is  admit- 
ted as  such,  then  he  has  only  to  proceed  with  the  argument.  If, 
what  he  imputes  as  a  "doctrine,"  be  denied  by  his  opponent,  then 
he  must  either  abandon  it,  or  show  that  it  was  taught  in  the  acts 
of  a  general  council,  or  the  Bull  of  a  Pope,  "  as  a  tenet  of  faith 
OR  morals  that  had  been  Revealed  by  Almighty  God." 
When  he  has  proven  this,  then  he  may  again  proceed  to  build  his 
argument  on  it,  nothwithstanding  the  denial  of  his  opponent. 

SECOND.  His  next  duty,  as  a  logician,  is  to  show  in  what 
manner,  the  "  DOCTRINE"  is  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  li- 
berty, according  to  the  admitted  definition  of  these  words.  If, 
instead  of  this,  he  trusts  to  popular  prejudices  in  the  minds  of  his 
audience,  and  substitutes  declamation  instead  of  logic,  then  he 
appeals  to  the  tribunal  of  passion,  and  reason  will  assuredly  dis- 
claim the  verdict.  * 

THIRDLY.  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  wherein  the  "  fal- 


200 

LACiEs"  of  the  gentleman's  argument  consist.  The  foundations 
on  which  he  builds,  are  the  sayings  and  doings  of  popes,  cardinals, 
canonists,  and  Catholic  writers.  Now,  this  is  fundamentally  illo- 
gical ;  for,  there  are  many  things  said,  and  written,  and  f/o?ze,  by 
these,  which  are  not  Catholic  doctrines.  Thus  the  Interdict  of 
Venice — does  not  pretend  to  be  eiiJier  a  "  tenet  of  faith  or  morals." 

In  making  this  the  foimdation  of  nn  argument,  therefore,  he  as- 
sumes FALSE  PREMISES,  by  assuming  as  a  *'  doctrine,"  what  is  not 
doctrine,  and  he  arrives  at  a  false  concluston.  .  Herein  is  the 
fallacy. 

If  it  were  true,  that  Catholics  hold  the  Interdict  as  '*  a  tenet  of 
faith  or  morals,"  then,  the  argument  would  be  logical.  But,  as 
this  is  false,  so  the  reasoning  which  is  founded  on  it,  is  false,  so 
far  as  regards  the  question  in  debate.  If  I  had  asserted  that  the 
Pope  had  never  issued  an  interdict,  the  case  of  Venice,  would 
have  been  in  point,  to  refute  me.  But  the  question  is  not  about 
INTERDICTS,  but  about  DOCTRINES.  The  same  remarks  are  appli- 
cable to  the  other  facts,  real  or  pretended,  adduced  in  his  speech. 
They  may  be  true  in  themselves,  but  it  does  noi  follow  that, 
therefore,  they  are  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  religion.  The  Synod 
of  York,  or  the  Assembly  at  Pittsburg,  may  have  said  very  foolish, 
and  done  very  naughty  things;  but  it  does  noi  follow  that,  there- 
fore, the  Confession  of  Faith  is  a  book  of  heresy.  This  must  be 
proved  by  other  arguments.  Now,  when  I  shall  come  to  show 
what  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  religion  are  inimical  to  civil 
and  religious  liberty,  I  shall  begin  by  proving,  that  they  are  held 
by  that  denomination,  as  "  having  been  revealed  by  Almighty 
God."  Whenever  the  gentleman  disclaims  the  doctrine,  I  shall 
point  it  out  to  him,  put  his  hand  upon  it,  and  "  compel"  him,  as  a 
Presbyterian,  to  acknowledge  it.  His  introduction  of  the  acts 
and  opinions  of  individuals ,  instead  of  stating  the  acknowledged 
"  doctrines"  of  the  Catholic  religion,  as  evidence  in  the  case,  is 
a  FALLACY  in  argument,  which  proves,  either  that  he  knows  not 
the  laws  of  sound  reasoning,  or,  tiiat  l^e  believes  his  hearers  and 
readers  to  be  ignorant  of  them. 

FOURTHLY.  The  case  of  Venice  furnishes  a  few  facts  which 
go  to  refute  the  gentleman.  Venice  was  a  REPUBLIC.  And 
Venice  was  CATHOLIC.  Therefore,  the  Catholic  doctrines 
have  nothing  in  them  inconsistent  vnth  republicanism.  .  Here 
then,  is  a  fact  which  refutes  the  slanders  of  the  whole  tribe  of 
Anti-Catholic  crusaders,  who  are  going  about  disturbing  the  har- 
monies of  society  by  their  malevolent  zeal.  Again,  the  CATHO- 
LICS of  THAT  REPUBLIC,  when  the  POPE  attempted,  as 
they  conceived,  to  govern  the  temporal,  which  belonged  to  the 
sfate,  by  means  of  the  spiritual,  which  belonged  to  the  church, 
they  resisted  him,  and  were  prepared  to  resist  him  at  the  point  of 
the  bayonet.  Were  they  heretics 'for  this?  No:  they  were 
never  accused  of  it,  and  this  proves  that  they  violated  no  **  doc- 


201 

trine"  or  principle  of  the  Catholic  religion.  The  gentleman  in 
•his  comrnents  on  this,  confounds  the  "  interdict"  with  the  "ex- 
communication," but  this  I  ascribe  to  the  defectiveness  of  his  his- 
torical and  theological  information. 

FIFTHLY.  The  pretended  Bull  of  Innocent  VIII,  I  have  long 
since  pronounced  spurious.  It  is  not  in  the  Bullarium  Magnum, 
which  contains  others  quite  as  objectionable.  It  is  not  to  be  found 
in  Rome.  But  x\Ir.  Breckinridge  promised,  more  than  eighteen 
months  since,  to  procure  its  authentication  from  "  Cambridoje, 
England."  He  has  not  redeemed  his  promise.  Why?  He 
knows,  and  let  him  tell  why.  He  wants  the  "original  Latin." 
This  will  be  no  proof;  for  a  document  may  be  spurious  in  Latin, 
as  well  as  in  English.  Yet  he  gives  the  document,  under  all 
these  circumstances,  as  if  it  were  genuine.  But  even  if  it  were 
genuine,  it  would  be  no  proof;  because  it  does  not  constitute  a'ny 
doctrine  of  the  Catholic  religion.  This  is  the  point,  which  the 
gentleman  overlooks,  and  on  which  the  FALLACY  of  his  indue* 
tion  rests.  It  purports  to  be  a  letter  of"  Innocent,  the  Bishop," 
to  his  "  WELL  BELOVED  SON  Albertus,"  "  Commissary,  &.C.  both 
on  THIS  SIDE  and  on  THAT  SIDE  of  the  mountains,"  &c. 
Now,  what  I  have  to  defend,  are  the  DOCTRINES  of  the  Catho- 
lic religion  ;  and  as  this  is  no  such  thing,  even  if  it  were  genuine, 
and  as  besides  it  is  spurious,  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  it.  The 
gentleman  has  first  to  prove,  that  it  is  authentic  in  history  ;  se- 
condly, that  it  is  regarded  as  containing  doctrines,  and  iheii  I 
shall  recognise  it  as  an  argument. 

He  first  said  it  was  issued  in  1477.  This  was  before  Innocent 
was  elected.  I  sent  him  back  to  his  authorities.  Then  he  found 
he  had  anti-dated  the  document  ten  years,  and  charged  me  with 
"  evasion"  for  having  detected  the  error.  Then,  he  quoted 
Baronius.  I  told  him,  that  Baronius  wrote  only  as  far  down  as 
1198.  He  then  says,  it  was  "  Raynold"  (Raynaldus)  who  con- 
tinued the  work  of  Baronius,  and  instead  of  thanking  me,  for  com- 
pelling him  to  be  7nore  exact  in  his  information,  he  again  charges 
me  with  evasion.  Finally  he  finds  in  Raynaldus,  reference  to  a 
document  on  the  subject,  Rome,  1487,  and  concludes  that, 
THEREFORE,  this  is  that  document  !  !  Now,  I  deny  its 
authenticity,  and  I  call  for  the  proof.  I  know  that  it  is  worthless, 
for  his  argument,  even  if  it  were  authentic.  But  as  a  matter  of 
historical  criticism,  1  demand  his  .proof  Oh!  says  he,  the  "  La- 
tin original"  is  in  Cambridge,  England  !"  What  proof  have  we 
for  that  either?  I  deny  the  fact,  and  pronounce  the  document 
spurious,  and  worthy  of  the  cause  which  employs  it.  There  is  no 
diflicully  in  admitting  that  the' Waldenses,  as  well  as  the  Albi- 
genses  were  persecuted  by  the  Catholics.  This  is  not  the  ques- 
tion. But  the  question  is,  did  ever  Catholics  persecute  by  virtue 
of  any  "  TENET  OF  faith  or  morals  held  by  them  as  having 
BEEN  REVEALED  BY  Almighty  God  ?"  I  answcf  boldly,  NEVER. 

26 


202 

And  I  call  upon  their  accuser  to  point  out  the  TENET  or  DOC- 
TRINE in  their  religion  that  require  of  them  to  persecute.  He 
is  bound  to  do  this,  at  the  risk  of  being  looked  upon  as  a  public 
CALUMNIATOR  of  their  civil  and  religious  character. 

SIXTHLY.  Bellarmine  was  an  advocate  for  the  punishment  of 
heretics  by  the  state,  and  it  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  he  was  so  far 
from  pretending  that  any  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church  required 
this,  that  his  principal  authorities  for  his  views,  were  the  writings 
of  the  infallible  Calvin  himself.     Now,  my  obligation  in  this  con- 
troversy is  not  to  defend  all  that  was  ever  done,  or  said,  or  written 
by  Catholics.  I  am  here  to  defend  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  reli- 
gion^ and  not  the  opinions  of  its  members.    The  doctrines  are 
BINDING  ON  ALL  Catholics;  the  opinions  of  individuals  are  bind- 
ing ON  nobody.    Here,  then,  is  the  FALLACY  again,  which  per- 
vades the  whole  of  the  chapter.  Let  Bellarmine  answer  for  himself; 
I  do  not  hold  his  sentiments  on  the  subject  of  heretics.   I  prefer  the 
more  humane  views  of  the  other  individuals,  and  if  Bellarmine 
had  attempted  to  put  forth  these  views  as  the  DOCTRINES  of 
the  church,  and  not  as  his  own  opinions,  he  would  have  been  un- 
questionably called  to  account  for  them.     Does  he  lay  them  down 
as  tenets  of  Catholic  faith?     Not   he;  and  yet    the^  gentleman 
would  have  his  readers  believe,  that  the  speculations  of  an  author 
and  the  DOCTRINES  which  Catholics  "  hold  as  having  been  re- 
vealed by   Almighty  God,"  are  the  same  thing!     Silly  artifice! 
He   knows  that    the  doctrines  of  the    Catholic  Church  are  no 
more  affected  by  the  writings  of  individuals,  giving  their  opinion 
as  individuals,  than  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  affected 
by  the  babblings  of  a   pettifogger.     His  system   of  logic    would 
make  the  ravings  of  Garrison  a  part  of  the  American  Constitution, 
and  those  of  Doctor  Ely,  or  Mr.  M'Calla,  a  part  of  the  Presbyterian 
creed.     Catholics,  as  such,  are  accountable  for  doctrines  held  by 
the  church  as  having  been  revealed  by  Almighty  God. 

SEVENTHLY.  He  asked  me,  whether  the  majority  in  Italy 
and  Spain  had  a  right  to  establish  the  Catholic  religion  by  law. 
To  this,  I  replied  that,  if  in  doing  so,  they  violated  no  right  of 
the  minority,  they  had,  in  that  case,  but  not  otherwise,  the  right 
to  establish  it.  He  says,  the  case  can  never  occur,  and  I  reply 
that,  if  it  can  never  occur,  it  can  never  be  right  for  any  majority 
to  establish  any  religion  bylaw.  I  asked  iiimin  turn,  whether 
his  Scotch  forefathers  Had  a  right,  being  a  minority,  to  pull  down 
by  force  the  altars  and  religious  emblems  of  the  Catholics,  who 
were  thfe  majority.  To  this  he  replies,  "  it  was  wholly  wrong." 
This  flat  denial  of  Presbyterian  DOCTRINE  is  what  I  expected. 
Any  book,  which  is  used  as  a  catechisai,  with  the  approbation  of 
the  church,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  standard  ;  and  such  a  book  is 
Fisher's  Catechism,  which  answers  the  question  very  differently. 
In  explaining  the  gentleman's  Confession  of  Faith,  it  has  this 
"Question.  Are  our  forefathers  to  be  blamed  for   pulling  dowa 


203 

altars,  images,  and  other  monuments  of  idolatry,  from  places  of 
public  worship,  at  the  reformation  ?  Answer.  No.  They'  had 
Scripture  precept  and  warrant  for  what  they  did.  (1)  '  Ye  - 
shall  destroy  their  altars,  and  break  down  their  images, 
and  cut  down  their  groves,  and  burn  their  graven  images 
WITH  FIRE.'  "  (2)  Here  we  see  the  heresy  of  the  gentleman's  reply 
when  he  says  it  was  "  wholly  wrong."  This  identical  Scripture 
is  quoted  or  referred  to  in  his  Confession  of  Faith,  and  shows  the 
"  SCRIPTURE  WARRANT"  for  burning  the  convent  at  Bos- 
ton. 

EIGHTHLY.     The  gentleman  admits,  that  Devoti  proclaims 
expulsion  from  church   communion,  to  be  the  **  highest  grade  of 
ecclesiastical  coercion."     Now,  this  settles  the  question,  so  far  as 
the  present  discussion  is  concerned.     The   same   means  of  "  ec- 
clesiastical COERCION,"   is  used  by  every  yetty  sect,  in  existence. 
This  belongs  to  doctrine,  and    all   the   rest  is  touching  what  is 
called   canon  law,'or  rules  that  were  observed  in  states  where  the 
ecclesiastical  law  was  so  mixed  up  with  the  civil,  as  to  be  part  and 
portion  of  the  law  of  the  land.     Is  it  honest  then,   I  would    ask, 
to  take  advantage  of  the  ignorance  of  those  who  are  unacquaint- 
ed with  the  political  conditions  of  other  times,  and  by  a  perversion 
of  truth,  represent  as  portions  of  Catholic  doctrine,  those  things 
which  Devoti   himself,  shows  to  have  been   the  result  of  positive 
state  and  church  laws?     If  the  author  in  question  says,  that  Ca- 
tholics  are  bound  by  the   obligation  of  their   religion,  to  do  what 
he  tells  us  has  been  done,  then  I  want  to  know,  in  what  part  of 
his  work  the  assertion  is  found.     The  whole  speech,  being  a  la- 
boured  effort  to  compel  Catholics  to  believe,  what  they  would  in 
fact  BE   HERETICS    iu   bclicving    as    tenets   of  revelation, — 
shows  how  the  accuser  is  straitened  for  evidence.     He  must  first 
swear,  that  Catholics  believe  it  as  a  principle  or  tenet  of  their  re- 
ligion— and  when  tliey  swear,  that  they  do  not, — he  must  then 
swear  in  reply,  that  they  are   not  to   be  believed  on  oath.     He 
bound  himself  in  the  agreement,  to  confine  the  question  to  their 
DOCTRINES,  and  yet   he  never  touches  a  DOCTRINE,  but 
selects  out   the   history  of  eighteen   hundred  years,  and   of  the 
Christian  world,  such  portions   as  would  prove  his  point,  IF  it 
were  not  CALUMNY  of  the  grossest  kind,  to  call  them   doc- 
trines,  or   hold    Catholics  of   the   present  day  accountable  for 
them. 

NINTHLY.  I  have  explained  the  circumstances,  connected 
with  these  times,  as  much  as  the  limits  at  my  disposal  would  ad- 
mit. I  have  shown,  that  in  no  case,  has  the  gentleman  met 
the  question  at  issue.  I  defy  any  man  to  fix  on  any  single 
DOCTRINE,  proved  TO  BE  SUCH,  whicli  is  opposcd  to  civil  and 
religious  liberty.     I  have,  in   former  speeches,  pointed  out  what 

fl)  Numbers  xxxiii.  and  Dent,  vii,  5.  (J)  Page  66,  67. 


204 

are  the  principles  of  Catholic  doctrine.  They  are  tenets,  held 
by  the  church,  as  having  been  revealed  by  divine  authority — 
are  believed  by  ALL  CATHOLICS— in  ALL  TIMES— in  ALL 
PLACP:S— and  which  it  would  b6  HERESY  TO  DENY. 
These,  and  these  only,  are  Catholic  "DOCTRINES."  And 
these  are  what  the  gentleman  shuns,  although  it  was  in  these  that 
he  bound  himself  to  discover  hostility  to  civil  and  religious  liber- 
ty. I  shall  argue  the  case  for  him,  by  taking  up  some  of  those 
grounds,  which  the  calumnies  of  Protestant  writers  have  assigned, 
as  evidence  in  the  case.  But,  before  I  do  this,  I  have  to  call 
upon  the  gentleman,  to  explain  a  k\v  points,  in  which  he  has  had 
the  infirmity/  to  sin  against  truth,  without  having  the  grace  or. 
humility  to  acknowledge  it.  I  have  been  under  the  necessity  of 
admonishing  the  audience,  that  his  statements  were  not  to  be  de- 
pended on,  and  as  this  implies  a  very  serious  charge,  it  becomes 
necessary  for  me,  to  establish,  and  to  prove  it.  And  here  1  must 
protest  against  loifoimded  accus^iion  of"  abus6  and  personality." 
If  I  were  to  go  out  of  the  record,  to  examine  his  private  affairs, 
that  would  be  *'  personality."  If  I  were  to  imitate  his  exam- 
ple, by  retorting  on  him  epithets  of  contempt  and  odium,  such 
as  he  has  applied  tome,  "Jesuit,"  "papist,"  "foreigner,"  "mi- 
nion of  the  pope,"  &c.  &c.,  that  would  be  "abuse" — -too  viil- 
gar,  I  trust,  for  my  imitation.  But  I  have  done  nothing  of  this 
kind.  I  have  been  invited  expressly,  to  controvert  his  statementSy 
to  examine  his  authority,  and  expose  him,  whertever  he  uses  bad 
logic  or  false  assertion.  I  hope  he  did  not  expect  me  to  come 
here,  at  his  invitation,  to  sanction  by  my  silence,  the  calumnies 
hy  which  the  public^  (to  an  almost  incredible  extent,)  have  been 
so  long  deluded,  on  the  subject  of  the  Catholic  religion,  and  its 
doctrines.  If  he  did,  he  is  mistaken.  He  stands  forth  as  a 
PUBLIC  ACCUSER,  and  he  must  expect  that  his  claim  to  ve- 
racity, will  be  scrutinised.  He  who  tries  to  take  away  the  charac- 
ter of  a  large  body  of  his  fellow-citizens,  must  not  complain, 
when  his  unamiable  zeal  pushes  him  to  the  daring  experiment  of 
risking  his  own.  If  he  makes  a  false  statement — and  I  prove 
that  it  is  a  false  statement,  has  he  any  right  to  complain,  that  I 
am  ^'abusive  or  personal?'''  I  should  think  not.  If  he  were 
scrupulous,  he  would  never  leave  such  an  advantage  in  my  power. 
I  have  already  given  some  instances,  in  my  former  speeches,  in 
proof  of  the  fact,  that  his  statements  are  not  to  be  depended  on. 
1  shall  now  give  a  {qw  more. 

In  page  89,  (Johnson's  edition)  of  our  written  Controversy,  he 
gives  a  quotation  from  the  "  Third  chapter"  of  the  Fourth  Council 
of  Lateran,  as  divided  by  Caranza.  Hesays,  atthe  headofit,  "i" 
have  the  original  before  me,  but  for  7vcmf  of  space,  I  give  the  trans- 
lation.'^ In  regard  to  this  translation,  the  following  questions 
were  put  by  me.  "  First,  do  you  give  it  as  a  literal  and  con- 
tinuous translation  ?     Second,  do  you  affirm,  that  in  the  origi- 


205 

wa/,  it  has  the  same  general  meaning  that  it  seems  to  have  in 
the  translation  ?"  (p.  100.)  His  answer  to  the  first  question  is 
— *•  I  answer  imhesitatinsrly ^  I  do."  And  yet,  ihe  fact  is,  that  it 
WAS  NOT  CONTINUOUS  !  The  truth  is,  that  no  two  sen- 
tences of  this  "  continuous''  translation,  follow  each  other  in  the 
original,  without  words  or  sentences  intervening,  which  he  omit- 
ted. He  had  "  the  original  before  him."  And  if  he  had — he 
must  have  known  that  it  was  not  continuous.  How  then,  and  I 
ask  him  for  a  reply,  how  could  he  sait/,  that  it  was  continuous? — 
First  instance.  Again,  having  the  original  before  him,  how  could 
he  say  in  reply  to  the  second  question.  **  /  consider  the  second 
question  an  indignity  offered  to  the  feelings  of  any  honest  man." 
(p.  106.)  This  second  question  was,  "  Whether,  in  the  original, 
it  had  the  same  general  meaning,  that  it  seems  to  have  in  the 
quotation.^''  His  reply  is  an  indignant  mode  of  asserting,  that  it 
had.  And  yet  the  TRUTH  IS,  that  it.HAD  NOT.  The  ori- 
ginal had  it,  "  the  secular  powers  PRESENT  ;"  which  limits 
the  meaning,  by  the  word  "present," — qualifying  the  **  secular 
powers,"  to  whom  the  executirti  of  the  decree  was  entrusted. 
To  make  the  '*  meaning  general,''''  Mr.  Breckinridge  OMITS 
the  word  **  present,"  in  the  translation,  **  having  the  original  be- 
fore him," — and  yet  affects  to  be  indignant,  that  I  should  have 
suspected  him  of  having  done  so  !  He  denies  it,  and  regards  the 
question  as  an  insult.  And  yet,  what  he  denieij,  was  true. 
Second  "  instance." 

Again  still,  he  says,  (same  page)  **  1  answer,  that  it  is  from 
your  own  *  Caranza's  Summa  Conciliorum,'  that  I  quote."  Now, 
the  proof  ihu  this  is  not  to  be  depended  on,  is,  that  the  last  sen- 
tence of  the  quotation  is  not  in  Caranza — at  least  not  in  the  part 
from  which  the  rest  was  taken.      Third  "  instance." 

He  says,  (same  page)  "  I  omitted  ihe  ongmo.]  for  want  of  space 
alone.''^  This  could  not  be  the  fact,  if,  as  we  have  seen,  he  had 
"  space"  left  for  what  was  not  in  the  original  at  all.  Fourth 
"instance."  Now,  I  challenge  the  gentleman  to  deny  one  sin- 
gle statement  here  made.  If  he  does  deny  one,  I  shall  quote  the 
omitted  passages,  and  show  that  the  denial  is  to  be  regarded  as 
another  "  instance."  If  he  does  not  deny  one,  then  he  admits 
the  facts,  and  I  call  upon  him  for  the  explanation.  I  might  add 
many  more,  but  I  shall  reserve  them  for  future  occasion,  not  wish- 
ing to  press  too  much,  at  once. 

This  may  be  as  convenient  a  place  as  any  other,  to  notice  the 
gratuitous,  and  unmixed  "  abuse  and  personality,"  with  which 
Mr.  Breckinridge  introduced  his  last  speech.  If  he  can  show, 
that  my  statements  are  unfounded  in  truth,  I  shall  not  complain. 
But  when,  unable  to  do  this,  he  travels  out  of  the  discussion,  to 
treat  of  matters  that  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  in  de- 
bate, then  I  maintain,  that  the  "  low  abuse,  and  indecent 
jjersonalities,"  are  his  own.     His  reference  to  what  he  calls,  my 


206 

"spirit   and   origin," — to  "  St.  John's,"    "the    fashionable 
CONGREGATION,"  the  "  bancl-box,''  the  **  Priest  at  the  altar," 
the  "  breeding  skin-deep,"  the  "  ecclesiastical  shillelagh," 
&/C.,  all  on  the  same  page,  are  specimens  (I  will  not  say,  of  mere 
personality,  but,)  of  crossness,    for  which  no  parallel   can   be 
found  in  my  writings.     I  ask,  what. have  these  things  to  do  with 
the   question?     If  I  were   disposed   io  retort,  I  should   say,  that, 
there  are  some  men,  in  whom  vulgarity  and  pride  are  insepara- 
bly blended, — alternately  betraying   each   other; — in  whom,  this 
complex  quality  is  so  innate  and  constitutional,  as  to  bid  defiance 
to  the  influence  of  education,  good    manners,  and  even  religion 
itself.     I   might  quote   the    gross  and  abusive  epithets,   which 
the  Rev.  John  Breckinridge  has  applied  to  his  opponent,  during 
this  discussion,  to  prove,   that  the  gentleman  himself,    (if  to   use 
his  own  words,  "I  must  call    him  by  that  name   any  longer,")   is 
one  of  those    men.      But,    such    retorts   do   not  edify.      However, 
lest   the  gentleman   should   mistake  my  motive  for  abstaining,  I 
wish  him  to  know,  that,  as   to    family,  origin,  good-breeding, 
education,    private  history,    public  character,   I    have  no 
reason   to  shrink   from  a  comparison  with    HIM,  the   said   Rev. 
John  Breckinridge.     If  he  brings  on  the  discussion,  he   will  find 
me  as  competent  to  rebuke  arrogant  pretension,  as  he  has  found 
me  to  refute  bad  logic.     I  shall   hold  myself  ready  to  balance  the 
account,  as  soon  as  he  may  think  proper  to  present  it.     But,  let 
the  responsibility  be  on  him.     The  first,  and  most  essential  ingre- 
dient  in. the  moral  composition  of  a  well-bred  man,  is  a  strict 
and  scrupulous  regard /or  truth.     There  are  violations,  however, 
of  truth,  which  have  no  evil  consequence,  except  to  the  speaker 
himself.     But  when  truth  is  violated, /or  the  purpose  of  pevama- 
TioN,  then  it  admits  of  no  palliation.     I  shall  here  give  one  addi- 
tional "  instance,"  in  which   the  gentleman  has   violated    truth, 
precisely  in   this   way.     It   is   found  in    the  written  Controversy, 
p;  325,  (Johnson's  edition,)  where  he  gives,  or  professes  to  give, 
a  note  from  the  Rhemish  Testament,  and  bad  as  those  notes  are, 
\\Q  falsifies  the  citation,  in   order  to  make  it  appear  even  worse 
than  they  are.     The  note  is  on  Hebrew  v.  7. 

The  note  is  this.  As  falsified  by  Mr.  Breckin- 

^^  But    IF    the    good    reader  ridge. 

knew  for  what  point  of  doctrine  "  The     translators      of    the 

they     {the   Protestant   transla-  English      {Protestant)      Bible 

tors,)  have  thus  framed  their  OUGHT  TO  BE  abhorred  to 

translation,    they  mould   ab-  the  depths  of  hell."" 
hor  them  to  the  depth  of  helL"" 

Here  the  gentleman  makes  that  a  positive  and  universal  propo- 
sition, which  is  in  the  text,  only  conditional — **  if  the  good 
reader  knew,"  dec.     2.  He  makes  that  a  chity,  which  the  £(uthors 


207 

say,  would  be  a  consequence.  3.  He  falsifies  the  text  absolute- 
ly, by  inserting  the  words,  *'  OUGHT  TO  BE,"  which  are  not 
in  the  orrginal.  4.  By  his  omission  of  the  true,  and  inserting  of 
the  untrue,  the  citation  would  make  it  appear,  that  the  crime  of 
translating  the  Bible  into  English,  was  that,  for  which  the  trans- 
lators "ought  to  be  abhorred,"  &lz.  Now  the  truth  is,  that  the 
annotators  were  censuring  them  for  perverting  the  Bible,  after 
the  example  of  Calvin.  They  are  censuring  that  perversion,  b.y 
which  these  translators,  would  harve  Christ  to  have  "  suffered 
THE  PAINS  OF  THE  DAMNED  IN  HELL."  And  the  Rhemish  an- 
notators say,  that  "  if  the  good  reader^''  knew  this,  he  would 
abhor  them  to  the  depth  of  hell.  Now,  Mr.  President,  the  pub- 
lic must  determine,  how  far  this  gentleman  is  sustained  by  ho- 
nour, in  thus  CORRUPTING  the  INTEGRITY,  and  AL- 
TERING ihe  language  of  his  witnesses,  for  the  PATRIOTIC 
purpose  of  blackening  the  reputation  of  Catholics,  and  helping  a 
desperate  cause.  • 

During  that  controversy,  it  became  necessary  for  me  to  point 
out  so  many  instances  of  a  similar  kind,  that,  as  it  would  seem, 
his  friends  became  a  little  alarmed.  Accordingly,  shortly  after 
its  close,  there  appeared  a  volume  of  the  usual  slander  and  ca- 
lumny against  Catholics,  under  the  insulting  and  lying  title  of 
"  A  HISTORY  OF  POPERY."  The  author  appears  to  have 
been  ashamed  to  put  his  name  to  it.  But  he  got  Doctor  Miller  to 
endorse  the  ribaldry. 

The  venerable  Professor  in  an  "  Introductory  Essay,"  to  that 
compilation  of  falsehoods  and  buffoonery,  took  occasion  to  allude 
to  the  controversy,  m  language  that  shows  how  necessary  he  must 
have  considered  it  to  repeat  the  charges,  and  support  them  on  his 
own  authority,  when  they  had  been  found  to  rest  on  no  other.  I 
do  not  pretend  to  judge  of  his  heart  or  motives,  but  speaking  of 
his  language  in  as  much  as  it  can  be  considered  apart  from  its 
author,  I  venture  to  assert  that  it  is  impossible  to  find  in  so  small 
a  compass,  a  larger  quantity  of  condensed  malignity,  slander,  and 
sanctimoniousness.  Of  the  sanctimonious  portion,  I  shall  quote 
at  present  two  sentences,  which  I  recommend  to  thg  serious  con- 
sideration of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Breckinridge.  Speaking  of  the  contro- 
versy, the  venerable  Professor  says,  t'  Misrepresentations  the  most 
gross  were  not  only  made,  hut  after  their  falsehood  was  demon- 
strated, was  persevered  in  with  a  recklessness,  truly  astonishing.'^ 
Yes,  we  have  just  "demonstrated"  the  "falsehood"  of  some  of 
them.  "  With  such  adversaries,"  he  continues,  "  it  is  difficult  for 
men  of  TRUTH  and  of  DELICACY,  to  carry  on  a  contest."  (5) 
Yes,  it  is  extremely  "  difficult"  when  their  own  statements,  and 
even  their  citations,  as  we  have  seen,  are  not  to  be  depended  on; 
and    when   their  language   becomes   surcharged    with   scurrilous 

(5)  Ibid,  p.  16. 


208 

epithets  and  indelicate  figures,  such  as  graced  the  introduction  of 
Mr.  Breckinridge's  last  speech.  This  smooth  moral  of  the  Doc- 
tor's was  'intended  as  a  charge  against  the  Catholic  side  of  the 
controversy;  but  facts  prove  that  its  application  properly  belonged, 
and  belongs  to  the  other. 

It  is  in  this  "  Essay,"  that  this  meek  Professor  denounces  the 
Catholics — those  who  in  the  exercise  of  the  rights  of  conscience, 
prefer  the  religion  of  Carroll,  of  La  Fayette,  of  Kosciusko,  and  of 
Gaston — as  the  "  foes  of  God  and  man."  Think  you,  sir,  that 
the  spirit  of  Calvinism,  which  inspired  him  with  this  language, 
would  not  impel  his  followers  to  actions  corresponding,  if  the  Con- 
stitution did  not  interpose? 

But  enough  of  Doctor  Miller  for  the  present.  As  to  the  slan- 
ders with  which  his  Essay  is  crowded,  I  shall  take  another  occa- 
sion of  placing  them  in  company  with  those  which  I  am  now 
engaged  in  refuting,  so  far  as  they  belong  to  this  question. 
•  I  shall  now  take  up  such  of  the  small  points  of  the  gentleman's 
speech,  as  deserve  notice.  As  to  the  seven  words  torn  out  of  a 
sentence  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  applied  as  a  translation  of 
an  English  pretended  quotation,  I  have  already  established  the 
fact,  that,  as  the  gentleman  used  them,  tliey  comprised  bad  gram- 
mar, barbarism,  and  nonsense ;  although  in  the  context  from 
which  they  had  been  taken,  they  are  exactly  correct.  The  gen- 
tleman never  attempted  to  meet  me  on  that  head.  I  said  they 
were  a  forgery ;  but  as  soon  as  I  discovered  my  mistake,  I  retracted 
the  expression.  Notwithstanding  this,  contrary  to  all  parliamen- 
tary usage,  he  avails  himself  of  my  candour  to  accuse  me  of  in- 
justice, rslow,  the  fact  is,  that  the  analogies  of  the  case  are,  as 
if  A  had  charged  B  with  forging  the  name  of  C:  And  as  if  B 
should  affect  to  triumph,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  not  forged, 
but  had  only  cut  out  and  transferred  the  signature.  This  would 
not  be  exactly  forgery,  but  it  would  be  almost  as  disreputable; 
at  all  events,  it  would  be  nothing  to  be  boasted  of  He  says  that  * 
this  is  not  a  "  solitary  mistatement."  I  assure  him  and  the  au- 
dience, that  I  will  retract  every  "  mistatement"  that  he  can  prove 
to  be  such,  if  he  will  have  the  goodness  to  point  it  out.  I  chal- 
lenge him  to  convict  me  of  any  "  mistatement,"  which  I  am  not 
ready  to  correct.  The  side  of  the  discussion  which  rests  on  truth, 
requires  no  other  support ;  and  though  it  is  possible  that  I  may 
commit  mistakes,  I  only  wish  to  have  them  pointed  out.  It  is  by 
this  purpose  of  honesty,  that  I  have  escaped,  and  always  shall 
escape,  those  straits  into  which  the  gentleman  has  betrayed  him- 
self by  his  rashness,  or  readiness,  to  assert  what  is  yiot  true:  and 
his  obstinate  reluctance  in  correcting  it,  when  pointed  out,  and 
proven  to  a  demonstration,  as  in  the  foregoing  "  instances." 

As  to  Caranza,  I  have  already  furnished  evidence  which  ought 
to  make  Mr.  Breckinridge  wish  to  forget  his  name.  He  states, 
that  ill  reference  to  this  author,  I  "  gloried  in  the  apparent  tri- 


209 

umph  over  his  (Mr.  B's)  character."  Now,  from  what  I  have 
already  established  in  this  speech,  the  audience  will  judge  whether 
the  *'  triumph"  was  not  real  and  complete.  But  to  me  it  is  no  *'  tri- 
umph,"— truth  alone  claims  the  victory.  1  understood  distinctly 
the  gentleman  to  account  for  the  iniquitous  suppression  in  the  Twen- 
ty-seventh Canon  of  the  Third  Council  of  Lateran,  by  stating,  when 
charged  with  it,  in  the  debate,  that  he  followed  Caranza;  and  the" 
PROOF  that  I  understood  him  correctly,  was  the  silence  with  which 
he  admitted  the  charge.  It  appears  that  afterwards  he  discovered 
his  mistake,  by  a  reference  to  the  written  text  of  the  Controversy, 
and  then  attempts  to  hold  me  alone  accountable  for  a  position, 
which  he  created  by  his  assertion,  and  confirmed  hy  his  silence, 
when  called  upon  for  an  explanation.  And  to  show  how  strong 
his  propensity  is  to  use  abusive  language,  and  how  weak  the  pre- 
texts on  which  he  indulges  his  taste,  he  asks:  '^  But  does  the 
silence  of  the  slandered  man  make  the  slander  true?  And  pray, 
ivhy  did  he  (Mr.  H.)  say  it  the  first  time?  Does  one  falsehood 
excuse  two?''''  No:  but  if  Mr.  Breckinridge,  in  the  debate,  gave 
Caranza  as  his  guide,  and  I  took  the  excuse  which  he  gave,  and 
whilst  I  used  it  in  argument,  he  was  silent  as  he  admits,  thereby 
showing  that  I  had  not  misunderstood  him,  then  he  himself  was 
positively,  by  his  assertion,  and  negatively,  by  his  silence,  the 
WITNESS  against  himself.  It  was  on  his  authority  and  admission 
that  I  argued;  and  the  gentleman  overreaches  himself  a  little, 
when  he  applies  the  words  "  slander"  and  "  falsehood,"  to  what 
was  said  on  his  own  testimony.  He  may  keep  these  precious 
phrases  where  they  belong. 

But  the  gentleman  is  mistaken  if  he  thinks  that  he  can  escape  the 
ch^geoi faithless  citation,  in  regard  to  the  Twenty-seventh  Canon 
of  the  Third  Lateran,  by  any  such  silly  flourish,  as  that  which  I  have 
just  exposed.  And  since  he  did  not  follow  Caranza,  in  citing  the 
canon,  I  call  upon  him  to  s!iy  from  whom  he  copied.  I  demand 
HIS  AUTiioRiTy.  He  cites  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  canon, 
conceals  the  m,iddle  by  suppression,  which  contained  a  narrative 
of  the  crimes  and  cruelties  of  the  Albigenses,  and  makes  it  appear 
that  the  punishment  which  was  awarded  for  their  crimes,  was 
si mply ybr  their  speculative  heresies.  The  object  of  all  this  ma- 
lignant artifice,  and  dishonest  citation,  was  to  blacken  the  Catholic 
name,  and  excite  hatred  founded,  in  so  much  at  least,  on  decep- 
tion, in  the  minds  of  Protestants.  If  he  says  he  translated  from 
the  original,  then  I  charge  him  directly  with  the  fraud.  If  he 
says  HE  DID  NOT  copy  from  the  original,  then  I  demand  the  name 
of  the  author,  from  whom  he  did  copy — rthat  Protestants  who  love 
truth,  may  know  in  what  geometrical  progression  arc  propagated 
from  generation  to  generation,  those  calumnies  which  are  invoked 
to  prove  that  Catholics  ought  to  he  hated.  Tjie  name  must  be 
GIVEN,  otherwise  the  falsification  must  test  at  the  gentleman's 
own  door.     Supposing  I  were  to  quote  a  document  to  show  that 

27 


210 

Presbyterians  put  heretics  to  death,  and  suppress  the  part  of  the 
document  which  attested  that  these  heretics  were  guihy  of  mur- 
der and  violence  of  every  description,  what  vvould  honest  and 
honourable  men  say?  I  may  be  told,  that  this  does  not  justify  the 
canon; — that  is  not  the  question.  I  want  to  know  ivho  it  was^ 
that  cited  \i  di\s\\onGs\.\y,  for  the  first  time:  whether  it  was  Mr. 
Breckinridge  himself,  or  another  from  whom  he  copied. 

The  gentleman  had  stated  that  there  were  only  four  words  of 
the  second  commandment,  in  the  catechism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  followed  by  an  'expressive  "  et  caetera."  I  showed  by  fio 
less  than  five  different  editions  of  that  work,  that  it  contains  every 
word  of  the  whole  decalogue,  and  you  may  recollect,  gentlemen, 
how  he  blanched  under  the  testimony — how,  on  standing  up,  he 
spoke  of  his  character,  and  promised  that,  if  "  God  would  spare 
his  life,"  he  would  go  to  New  York,  and  procure  the  copy  of  that 
work,  on  which  he  depended  for  his  vindication.  'He  brought 
it  from  ^ew  York;  and  after  a  long  dissertation  on  the  injury 
that  had  been  offered  to  his  feelings,  he  exhibited  the  work. 
He  was  courteous  enough  to  trust  it  into  my  hands,  that  I  might 
exauiine  it,  when  lo!  the  entire  of  the  second  commmidment  w,a.s 
found  in  it,  the  same  as  in  all  the  rest!  He  spoke  no  more  about 
"  his  feelings;''  but  with  great  coolness  said,  that  it  was  not  all  on 
the  same  page,  which  contained  the  first  sentence!  The  com- 
mandments are  all  divided  in  that  work,  and  explained  clause  by 
clause.  Now,  I  call  upon  the  gentleman  to  do  homage  to  the 
truth  under  this  head,  and  to  undeceive  the  public  by  acknow- 
ledging that  the  ca.techism  in  question,  contains  not  only  "  four 
words,"  but  the  WHOLE  of  the  second  COMMANDMENT. 
Will  he  have  the  moral  courage  to  do  it?  I  fear  not.  He  repre- 
sents me  as  ridiculing  the  "  doctrine  of  regeneration."  I  protest 
against  the  charge.  I  am  not  conscious  of  having  employed 
"  ridicule,"  but  if  I  did,  it  was  in  reference  to  that  mockery  of 
regeneration,  which  allows  men  to  consider  themselves  holy  from 
the  moment  when  fhey  become  conspicuous  in  contributions  to 
present  or  future  schemes  of  benevolence  towards  others,  without 
first  going  back  to  make  straight  {he  crooked  ways  of  past,  pri- 
vate, and  .personal  transactions. 

I  b.ave  had  occasion  already  to  observe  that  Devoti's  work  is 
not  a  work  on  the  doctrines  of  Catholicity,  but  a  Treatise  on  the 
External  Policy  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Laws  and  Usages,  as  exist- 
ing in  Catholic  countries.  He  speaks  of  the  church  as  a  visible 
SOCIETY,  having  within  itself,  and  from  the  very  nature  of  its  con- 
stitution, all  the  powers  of  self-government,  implying  authority  to 
make  laws,  and  the  right  to  punish  those  who  violate  them.  Now 
these  punishments,  so  far  as  they  result  from  the  constitutional 
powers  of  the  church,  were  necessarily  given  by  Christ*  They 
consist  of  ecclesiastical  censures,  suspensions,  and  finally  excom- 
munication, which  the  author  calls  "  the  highest  grade  of  co- 


211 

These  are  the  punishments  (poenae),  or  penalties,  by  which  men 
are  to  be  "  compelled  (cogendos)  lo  the  observance  of  the  laws 
and  obligations  of  church  membership."  These  are  the  powers 
which  Devoti  says  were  given  by  Christ — as  I  proved  in  the  argu- 
ments of  my  last  speech.  I  then  stated,  that  Devoti  did  not  claim 
by  virtue  of  any  power  given  by  Christ  to  the  church,  the  right 
to  punish  by  fines,  imprisojiment,  or  otherwise,  ui  a  civil  sense. 
The  proof  was,  that  Devoti,  to  support  that  right,  referred  ex- 
pressly to  the  **  constitutions"  of  the  empire,  and  the  code  of 
Theodosius.  The  gentleman  says  this  is  "  false,  directly  false." 
And  what  proof  does  he  give  that  it  is  so?  He  says  that  Devoti 
claimed  for  the  church,  as  a  power  given  by  Christ,  the  right,  not 
merely  of  governing  by  counsel,  and  persuasion,  but  also  of  de- 
creeing by  laws,  and  of  compulsion,  and  of  coercing  with  punish- 
ment, those  who  are  worthy  of  it.  Mr.  Hughes  says  the  same, 
provided  that  the  "  decreeing*  of  laws,"  the  "compulsion,"  '*  coer- 
cing," and  "  punishment," — be  in  the  spiritual  order  such  as  the 
Synod  of  York  has  exercised  in  "  punishment"  of  Mr.  Barnes, 
when  they  could  not  "coerce"  him,  to  fall  down  and  worship  ^/ic/r 
infallibility.  Devoti  nowhere  says,  that  the  use  of  corporeal 
punishment,  by  prisons,  fines,  exile  or  otherwise,  was  by  virtue 
of  a  "  power  given  by  Christ."  This  is  the  proposition  which  the 
gentleman  says  is  "  directly  false;"  and  I  repeat  his  words  to 
show  another  '^instance""  in  which  his  statemenls  are  not  to  be 
depended  on.  There  was  no  dispute  between  Devoti  and  La 
.Borde,  on  the  subject  of  bodily  or  civil  punishments.  The  for- 
mer wrote  in  opposition  to  the  principles  laid  down  by  the  Re- 
formers, so  called,  which  La  Borde's  treatise  favoured.  What 
were  those  principles?  That  the  "judiciary  power"  in  the  church 
belongs  to  the  civil  magistrates,  under  the  pretty  title  of  "  nursing 
FATHERS  TO  THE  CHURCH."  And  thus  was  formed  that  coalition 
between  ecclesiastical  apostacy  and  political  ambition,  of  which 
the  thousand  and  one  religions,  called  the  Reformation,  were  the 
amphibious  offspring. 

I  refer  the  audience  tq  my  remarks,  in  my  last  speech,  for  the 
circumstances  in  wliich  Devoti  speaks  of  "prisons,  fines,  banish- 
ment, &:,c."  as  having  been  used  by  the  church.  The  gentleman, 
after  quoting  my  words,  tells  us  in  his  corrected  speech,  that  De- 
voti expressly  says  "  this  power  is  given  by  Christ  to  the  church." 
It  is  not  true.  And  to  show  that  it  is  not  true,  I  pledge  myself 
to  make  a  public  apology,  if  he  can  produce  the  words  of  the 
author,  stating  "  expressly  that  the  power  of  '  imprisoning,'  '  banish- 
ing,' or  *  imposing  pecuniary  fines,'  was  given  by  Christ  to  the 
CHURCH."  If  he  cannot,  his  inability  will  convict  Aim  of  another 
"  instance"  in  which  his  statements  are  not  only  not  to  be -depend- 
ed on,  but  are  absolutely  false  and  unfounded.  From  lliese,  his 
false  statements,  he  may  draw  what  inferences  against  Catholics 
he  pleases,  the  public  will  understand  the  true  consequence. 


212 

His  quotation  from  Devoti,  beginning  **  But  he  who  offends 
against  society^  <^c."  (which  he  gives  in  Latin  too,)  is  another 
attempt  at  establishing  a  false  conclusion,  on  the  belief  of  false 
premises.  Devoti  is  speaking  of  the  rights  of  the  •'  ecclesiasti- 
cal TRIBUNAL,"  to  judgc  those  who  were  subject  to  its  jurisdic- 
tion, being  clergymen,  and  in  those  cases  not  subject  to  the  civil 
judge.  But  does  he  say  that  the  right  to  judge  and  punish  them 
had  been  conferred  on  the  church  by  Christ?  Not  at  all.  On 
the  contrary  he  refers  expressly,  in  the  note,  to  the  LAWS  OF 
THE  EMPIRE,  for  the  source  of  that  jurisdiction  which  the 
church,  he  says,  exercises  over  the  "  persons"  of  the  clergy,  who 
had  been  guilty  of  crimes.  Whenever  these  crimes,  he  says, 
were  so  great  that  the  lenity  of  the  church  had  no  adequate 
punishment  for  them,  then  the  clergy  were  degraded,  and  the 
state  punished  them  directly  as  lay  persons.  Did  the  gentle- 
man see  this?  If  he  did,  how  could  he  honestly  suppress  it?  If 
he  did  not,  it  only  proves  that  he  reads  Devoti  as  the  deist  reads 
the  Bible.  But  whether  he  saw  it  of  not,  it  furnishes  another 
**  instance"  stilly  to  prove  that  his  statements  are  not  to  be  depend- 
ed on.  I  may  now  address  him  in  the  language  which  he  applies 
to  me.  He  says  that  Devoti  speaks  of  the  power  by  which  the 
church  inflicted  bodily  punishment  on  clergymen  who  had  com- 
mitted any  civil  crime  against  society,  as  *'  given  by  Christ  to 
the  church:"  whereas  Devoti, ^r*^,  does  ?20^  say  this — but,  second- 
ly, he  states  that  it  was  derived  from  the  civil  laws  of  the  empire, 
to  which  he  expressly  refers.  The  gentleman  asserts  what  is  7iot 
true,  and  suppresses  what  is  true.  "  How  strangely  then  must 
he  feel,  to  be  thus  caught,''''  making  Devoti  speak  falsehood 
to  support  a  calvinistic  argument.  His  reasoning,  when  founded 
on  false  premises,  falls  o(  itself. 

Now,  for  his  last  quotation  from  Devoti,  it  is  what  every  body 
acknowledges  in  every  sect.  The  Church,  as  a  spiritual  com- 
monwealth, has  governors,  or  magistrates,  and  has  power,  in  the 
order  of  its  constitution,  over  all  persons  who  are  its  members, 
and  all  things  that  belong  to  it,  for  its  use.  This  is  all  true,  not 
only  in  the  Catholic  Church,  which  received  it  from  Christ, 
the  original  proprietor,  but  also  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
which  claims  it  without  a  title,  and  exercises  it  most  graciously, 
as  Mr.  Barnes  knows. 

With  regard  to  the  INQUISITION,  I  proved,  in  my  last  speech, 
that  it  is,  and  ever  was,  as  much  unconnected  with  the  Catholic 
religion,  and  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  the  trial 
BY  JURY,  I  have  said  and  proved,  that  the  essence  of  the  inquisi- 
tion is  in  every  church  that  has  a  creed  which  it  calls  orthodox; 
and  that  the  gentleman  himself,  and  his  "  orthodox"  brethren, 
have  been  but  recently  discharging  the  genuine  functions  of  in- 
quisitors. As  long  as  he  does  not  assert  that  such  or  such  a  doc- 
trine oi  the  Catholic  religion  requires  the  existence  of  the  Inqui- 
sition, he  shrinks  from  his  proposition.     He  may  abuse  it  as  much 


21; 


.»> 


as  he  pleases,  and  he  will  accomplish  nothing.  .  "  The  question 
is  about  the  DOCTRINES  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  unless  he 
can  make  it  appear  that  the  inquisition  is  one  of' them — to  which  I 
challenge  him,  as  the  representative  of  all  the  calumniators  that 
have  ever  said  it  was — he  proves  nothing  to  the  point  in  debate. 
Devoti  gives  an  account  of  its  institution,  and  the  gentleman  con- 
cludes that  either  "  Devoti  or  myself  has  been  guilty  of  no  small 
departures  from  historical  and  doctrinal  truth."  He  will  again 
have  to  excuse  pie,  for  saying  that  his  statement  is  not  to  be  de- 
pended on,  until  he  will  have  the  goodness  to  point  out  in  lohat 
these  "  DEPARTURES"  consist. 

After  this  unfounded  statement,  he  goes  back  from  the  Inquisi- 
tion to  the  commencement  of- the  volume,  as  if  he  had  forgotten 
something  very  important.  Devoti  speaks  there,  as  he  speaks 
throughout,  of  the  church,  as  she  existed  in  conjunction  with  the 
ancient  i7nperial  laius.  He  speaks  of  her  *'  two-fold  power"  of 
punishment.  The  ONE  "  wholly  spiritual,  given  separately 
by  Christ."  Now  if  the  gentleman  were  not  bent  on  making  his 
attempt  at  argument  infinitely  ridiculous,  he  would  have  stopped 
here.  He  had  accused  Devoti  of  saying  that  the  '*  power"  to 
punish  "by  fines,"  "imprisonment,"  "  castigation,"  "exile,"  &lc. 
had  been  given  by  Christ  to  the  church.  Now,  however,  the 
truth  has  leaked  out,  and  he  is  convicted  by  his  own  showing. 
The  church  has  a  "  two-fold  power."  After  telling  us  what  was 
the  nature  of  the  power  given  by  Christ — that  it  is  "  WHOLLY 
SPIRITUAL,"  exercised  in  "  foro  intimo" — the  conscience,  and 
in*"foro  externo,"  laws  and  censures;  he,  Devoti,  tells  us  that 
she  has  "another  power"  which  she  has  in  common  with  every 
perfect  republic,  and  which  "  is  called  temporal."  "  It  follows, 
says  he,  that  there  should  be  a  twofold  kind  of  punishment  :" 
What  is  this  "  other"  power  that  was  not  given  by  Christ; — and 
"  is  called  temporal  ?"  Precisely  that  which  he  had  traced  to  the 
imperial  statutes,  with  a  fidelity  of  reference  which  the  gentle- 
man would  not  notice,  and  with  a  depth  of  erudition  which  the 
gentleman  could  not  fathom. 

I  thank  him,  however,  for  having  at  length  done  justice  to 
Devoti,  at  the  expense  of  his  own  statements.  When  the  imperial 
laws  allowed  "  ecclesiastical"  offenders  to  be  judged  and 
punished  by  the  "  ecclesiastical  tribunal,"  then  the  churchy 
or  the  authorities  of  the  church  "inflicted  bodily  punishment." 
But  by  what  power?  Bv  power  given  by  Christ?  No;  that  was 
*'  WHOLLY  SPIRITUAL."  By  what  "  power"  then  ?  By  the 
power  of  those  imperial  laws  which  Devoti  has  most  abundantly 
cited.  Here  again  the  gentleman  has  convicted  himself;  when, 
contrary  to  the  truth,  he  asserted,  and  repeatedly  asserted,  that 
Devoti  had  claimed  for  the  church,  "  as  a  power  given  her  by 
CHRIST,"  the  right  to  inflict  bodily  or  civil  punishment.  He  says, 
that  for  denying  his  assertion  he  will  "expose  me  in  a  way  which 


214 

I  must  deeply  regret."  His  assertions  and  arguments  have  inspired 
me  with  every  feeling  but  respect  for  the  cause  that  could  employ 
them  ;  and  I  can  ussure  him  that  his  threats  shall  not  deter  me 
from  my-duty  to  truth,  and  its  opposite  :  I  shall  continue  to  defend 
the  one,  and  expose  the  other.  1  have  no  doubt,  however,  but  he 
will  verify  the  words  of  the  poet,  "  furor  arma  ministrat." 

He  is  willing  to  **  leave  the  long  contest  about  Bossuet  to  speak 
for  itself."  It  has  spoken^  and  the  gentleman  is  wise  in  his  si- 
lence. And  also,  he  says,  *'  that  about  the  Third  Canon  of  the 
Fourth  Council  of  Lateran."  Not  exactly,  sir.  The  gentleman  must 
first  tell  us  why  he  said  he  quoted  from  "  our  own  Caranza,"  lite- 
rally and  continuously,  when  the  fact  was  not  so.  He  says  that, 
in  rehtion  to  this  canon,  "  a^  cveiy  step  1  have  given  ground.' 
First  I  tried  to  defend  the  canon,  as  being  only  discipline  against 
murderers.'^  This  is  not  the  fact,  I  never  said  it  was  "  discipline^" 
and  never  "  defended''''  it  at  all.  I  showed  that  it  was  no  "  doc- 
trine;" and  then  the  gentleman  represented  me  as  wishing  to 
make  it  "discipline."  1  showed  that  the  Albigenses,  through  whom 
Calvinism  is  claimed  to  have  descended  from  the  apostles,  were 
a  sect  whose  doctrine  and  practices  could  not  be  tolerated  in  any 
country  or  age;  and  then,  he  said,  that  I  "defended"  the  canon. 
As  to  its  authenticity,  I  assailed  it,  but  not  after  having  been 
"  driven"  from  what  he  incorrectly  calls  my  **  defence"  of  it.  I 
showed  that  he  had  nothing  to  reply,  except  that  he  shoidd  reply 
in  time;  from  which  I  inferred  that  my  speech  had  been  sent  to 
college  for  an  answer.  I  showed  that,  admitting  its  authenticity, 
it  proved  nothing  for  the  affirmative  of  the  question.  I  proved 
that  I  MIGHT  HAVE  AVAILED  MYSELF  of  its  spuriousuess,  *as  es- 
tablished by  numerous  evidences.  I  drove  the  gentleman  off  on 
this  point ;  and  by  a  kind  of  delusion  which  appears  to  be  natu- 
ral to  him,  he  has  mistaken  his  own  flight  for  mine.  It  is  true  that, 
taking  the  division  of  Caranza,  I  used  the  word  "canon,"  when  I 
should  have  said  "  chapter"  of  the  canon  ;  I  corrected  myself,  and 
then  the  gentleman  "  exposed"  me.  The  only  difference,  there- 
fore, between  the  gentleman  and  myself  is,  that,  whilst  I  have 
"  spiked''^  the  canon  effectually,  after  its  mischief  against  the  Albi- 
genses, he  has  been  sponging  it  with  the  leaves  of  Caranza,  to 
make  it  shoot  Presbyterians.  And  unfortunately  his  hands  have 
not  been  as  yet  pwr^/?ec?  from  the  operation. 

The  gentleman's  authorities  return  periodically,  like  the  arms 
of  a  windmill.  He  tells  us  that  "  Dens,"  an  author  which  neither 
of  us  has  ever  seen,  '*  has  opened  the  eyes  of  MILLIONS,  on  the 
other  side  of  the  waters,  to  the  new  evidences  of  the  penccuting 
doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome. '"  He  does  not  give  any  authority 
for  the  statement,  however,  not  even  "  our  own  Caranza."  A  book 
that  has  been  for  sale,  for  thirty  years  on  the  shelves  of  the  Pro- 
testant booksellers  in  Dublin,  has  at  length  been  miraculously  dis- 
covered, and  "has  opened  the  eyes  of  millions,"  yes;  not,  how- 


215 

ever,  to  see  what  the  gentleman  supposes,  but  to  see  by  what  low, 
base,  and  contemptible  tricks  Protestantism  in  England  tries  to 
sustain  itself  on  the  crutches  of  Mammon,  conscious  that  it  can- 
not walk,  nor  even  stand  without  them.  "  Opened  the  eyes  of 
millions;"  yes,  to  see  that  the  '*  no  popery"  tricks  will  avail  no 
more.  "Othello's  occupation's  gone,"  and  Murtagh  O'Sullivan, 
and  Mr.  Maghee,  dee,  dee,  cannot  recall  it.  The  ghost  of  Peter 
Dens  will  frighten  nobody.  The  people  of  England  are  looking 
for  freedom,  not  because  they  love  Catholic  doctrines,  but  because 
they  are  disgusted  with  protestant  oppression. 

The  gentleman   says,  I    "  have    proved    that    i   dare   not 

HONESTLY  AVOW  WHA.T  THE   TRUE   DOCTRINE   OF  MY' CHURCH  IS,  BEING  IN 

THE  UNITED  STATES."  How  he  found  his  way  into  the  cabinet  of 
my  thoughts,  is  more  than  1  can  conjecture.  Or  why  i  should  be 
AFRAID  to  avow  the  docti'ines  of  my  church  **  in  the  United  States," 
is  a  question  which  would  hardly  have  occurred  to  any  citizen, 
except  a  Vreshylex'i^n,  familiar  ivitlithe  secrets  and  designs  of  the 
anti-Catholic  conspiracy ,  which  has  begun  to  show  itself  in  bigotry 
and  DARKNESS,  except  at  Boston,  ivhere  its  darkness  was  turned 
into  light. 

He  says,  I  "  defend  the  Bull  in  Coena  Domini.^'  This  is  not 
true.  I  stated  that  it  had  been  suppressed  ;  and  that  was  surely 
not  defending  it.  Can  he  show  where  I  "defended"  it?  Does 
he  riot  perceive  that  he  injures  not  only  his  cause,  but  himself,  by 
such  assertions.  And,  on  this  unfounded  assertion,  he  builds 
almost  a  page  of  very  confused  and  vapid  declamation. 

The  gentleman  promises  to  speak  of  "  Anathema,"  in  its  place, 
and  "  too  soon  for  me."  He  cannot  take  it  up  too  soon  for  him- 
self, however ;  for  he  has  said  that  it  means  "  CURSE,"  and  I 
have  proved  that  it  does  not.  And  consequently  that  he  has 
"  borne  false  witness  against  his  neighbour." 

The  gentleman  tells  us,  that  the  "  Bible  doctrine"  forbids  the 
establishment  of  any  religion  by  law.  I  shall  prove  from  his  own 
"  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH,"  that  his  assertion  is  not  the  doctrine  of 
his  church.  Was  not  the  Jewish  religion  established  by  law  ? 
And  is  not  this  the  Bible?  Aye,  and  that  very  portion  of  the 
Bible  which  Presbyterians,  as  the  "people  of  God,"  in  ''New 
Testament  times,"  have  ever  been  ready  to  imitate. 

I  had  refuted  Mr.  Wesley's  false  charge  against  the  Council  of 
Constance,  in  a  way  that  bids  defiance  to  my  respondent.  I  proved 
that  Mr.  Wesley,  supposing  him  to  have  been  sincere  when  he 
asserted  the  calumny,  had  been  deceived ;  and  the  arguments 
adduced  by  me  for  that  purpose,  have  left  the  gentleman  without 
auy  future  pretext  for  the  wilful  malignity  that  would  repeat  the 
charge  of  Wesley  ;  knowing,  as  he  now  does,  that  the  charge  was, 
and  is,  and  shall  ever  be,  an  atrocious  calumny.  He  has  no  reply 
to  my  facts,  no  answer  for  my  proofs.  The  original  documents 
have  confounded  him.     As  for  "help   from  priests,"  /  </o  no^  re- 


216 

ceive  it ;  and  the  gentleman  knows  that  I  do  not  stand  in  need  of 
it.  If,  instead  of  meeting  the  "  Cpllege  of  Priests,"  he  will  only 
meet  my  arguments,  it  will  be  much  more  to  his  credit.  By  those 
arguments  I  have  proved  that  the  man  who  asserts  **  that  it  is  a 
Roman  Catholic  inaxim,^'  or  "  doctrine,"  **  that  no  faith  is  to  be 
kept  ivith  heretics,^'  is  a  slanderer  of  the  Catholic  body.  Now  this 
has  been  asserted  by  Mr.  Wesley,  Dr.  Miller,  and  the  Rev.*  Mr. 
Breckinridge;  I  call  upon  the  last  mentioned  individual,  there- 
fore, to  prove  the  charge,  or  like  a  man  who  loves  truth,  to  ac- 
knowledge THE  SLANDER,  and  uudcceive  his  countrymen. 

He  says,  that  '*  in  the  very  terms  of  m,y  citation  from  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constance,  the  doctrine  is  avowed,  that  the  faith,  the  pledg- 
ed FAITH,   (of  the  Emperor,)  that  HUSS  SHOULD  return 

IN    SAFETY.    FROM    THE    COUNCIL,  WAS    NOT    BINDING."       NoW     this 

is  not  true.  And  the  proof  is,  that  no  such  faith  had  been  pledg- 
ed by  the  tlmperor.  The  Passport,  was  a  common  passport,  to 
protect  Huss,  travelling  through  Germany,  where  he  had  many 
private  and  personal  enemies.  The  Emperor  told  him,  that  if  he 
did  not  retract,  "  he,  with  his  own  hands,  would  kindle  the  fire 
to  burn  him."(l)  He  says,  again,  *'  the  Emperor's  conduct 
was  not  so  much  violated  by  the  execution  of  Huss,  as  by  his 
imprisonment.  For  if,  after  an  examination,  according  to  the 
due  course  of  law,  the  Council  had  found  John  Huss  a  heretic, 

THEY  WERE    IN  THE    RIGHT,  ACCORDING  TO  THE  USAGE    OF    THOSE 

TIMES,  to  sentence  him  to  the  flames,  and  deliver  him  over  to 
the  secular  arm. '\2) 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  a  more  cn7ic«/ examination  of  the  Presby- 
terian calf,  which  the  gentleman  sets  forth  as  \.\\q  Bull  of  Innocent 
VIII.  I  have  already  stated,  that  there  is  no  external  evidence 
of  history  to  prove,  that  it  is  authentic.  Now,  I  purpose  to  show, 
that  it  bears  in  its  bosom,  the  intrinsic  evidences  of  spuriousness 
and  falsehood.  1st.  It  enjoins  on  *'  archbishops  and  bishops  to 
take  up  arms."  Whereas,  by  a  law  of  the  church,  the  shedding 
.of  blood,  even  accidentally,  or  in  a  just  war,  disqucdifies  a  man 
from  becoming  a  clergyman — unless  by  a  special  dispensation. 
There  never  was  a  case,  in  which  it  was  allowed  for  clergymen, 
by  either  pope  or  council,  to  shed  human  blood,  in  war  or  other- 
wise. This  command  for  "  archbishops  and  bishops  to  take  up 
arms,'''  is  «/one  sufficient  to  stamp  the  character  of  the  document. 
2d.  After  having  ordered  all  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  powers, 
to  **  make  the  heretics  perish,  and  entirely  blot  them  out  from  the 
face  of  the  earth,''' — as  we  read  in  the  middle  of  the  document, — 
this  '■'  beloved  son,  Albertus,"  is  **  PERMITTED,"  towards  the 
close,  *Vif  ncef/  be,  to  call  into  his  assistance,  the  aid  of  the  secu- 
lar arm."  This  is  the  second  evidence,  that  it  is  spurious — and 
that  the  imposture  is  a  bungling  concern.     3d.  But  what  seals  the 

(1)  L'Enfant,  B.  III.  No.  G.  {2)  lb.  B.  IV.  No.  32. 


217 

evidence,  is,  the  suspicion  which  the  Pope  is  made  to  have  had 
about  its  being  regarded  as  spurious,  and  for  which  he  takes 
prophetic  measures.  '^  And  because,''  he  is  made  to  say,  "  zY 
may  be  difficult  to  transmit  these  present  letters,  to  all  places 
where  they  may  be  necessary,  we  will,  and  by  apostolical  au- 
thority  appoint,  that  to  a  copy  which  m,ay  be  taken  and  subscribe 
ed  by  the  hand  of  any  public  notary,  and  attested  by  the  subscrip- 
tion of  any  ecclesiastical  prelate,  entire  faith  m,ay  be  given,  and 
that  it  should  be  held  as  valid,  and  the  same  regard  paid  to  it, 
as  to  the  original  letters,  IF  THEY  HAD  BEEN  PRODUCED 
AND  SHOWN." 

This  was  rather  overdoing  the  business.  But  with  all  due  re- 
spect for  Innocent  VIIL,  and  his  calumniators,  I  would  prefer 
to  see  the  "  original  letters,"  or  an  ATTESTED  copy  of  them. 
Mf.  Breckinridge  is  not  a  '*  notary  public," — and  he  has  not 
procured  the  "  subscription  of  any  ecclesiastical  prelate;"  there- 
fore, I  cannot  "  pay  the  same  regard  to  it,"  as  if  it  were  authen- 
tic,  notwithstanding  the.  orders  of  his  holiness. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  1  call  on  the  gentleman  to  give  me  the 
souRCEfrom  which  he  derived  this  document.  From  whom  did 
he  copy  it  ?  I  demand  his  answer  to  that  question.  Was  it  from 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Brownlee  ?  Or  Mr.  M'Calla?  What  proof  has  he, 
that  it  was  ever  treated  as  genuine,  by  any  respectable  writer? 
What  then,  will  the  audience  and  public  think  of  the  cause  that 
requires,  and  the  man  who  could'  produce  such  a  document  in 
evidence?  Must  he  not  have  a  delicate  sense  of  literary  pride, — 
a  high  respect  for  the  understandings  of  his  audience, — a  sincere 
disposition  to  confer  honour,  on  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the 
American  name,  and  human  nature?  A  document  surrounded 
with  external,  and  surcharged  with  interned,  evidences,  of  spu- 
riousness — produced  by  a  man  who  tells  us,  that  there  is  a  "  Latin 
translation"  of  it  in  "  Cambridge,  England."  I  have  a  right  to 
demand  his  authority,  and  to  consider  it,  what  it  is,  a  vile  attempt 
at  imposture,  until  he  shall  have  furnished  us  with  its  history, 
and  the  proofs  of  its  authenticity.  Tlie  inference  and  commen- 
tary are  worthy  of  the  document;  founded  on  falsehood,  they 
perish  with  its  exposure. 

When  the  gentleman  introduced  Bellarmine  discussing,  as  an 
individual  in  the  exercise  of  his  private  opinion,  the  proposition — 
"  That  heretics  condemned  by  the  Church,  MAY  BE  punished 
with  temporal  punishment,  and  even  with  death,''''  hn  should  have 
stated  one  fact,  which  the  Cardinal  sets  out  with,  viz.  that  hk 
and  Calvin  were  agreed  on  that  point, — a  pretty  strong  evidence 
that  he  vyas  not  arguing  an  article  of  Catholic  doctrine.  He 
proves  his  opinion  by  various  arguments,  which  were  no  doubt 
satisfactory  to  his  own  mind — but  though  he  quotes  imperial  sta- 
tutes, and  facts  to  show  that  heretics  had  been  put  to  death,  and 
though    he   quotes   Calvin  to  prove,  that   they  ought  to  be  put  to 

28 


218 

death, — he  never  attempts  to  prove  it,  by  any  reference  to  the 
DOCTRINE  OF  HIS  OWN  CHURCH,  that  such  a  principle  of  *'  belief 
or  of  MORAL«,"  is  a  part  of  the  Catholic  religion.  The  gentle- 
man affects  to  say,  that  he  (Bellarmine)  was  giving  on  this  head, 
his  opinion  '*  of  Catholic  doctrine."  This  is  not  true.  He 
was  giving  his  own  opinion,  and  the  reasons  why  he  entertains 
it.  His  opinion  is  of  no  authority  ; — no  man's  opinion,  not  even 
the  Pope's,  is  of  any  authority  in  the  Catholic  Church,  farther 
than  as  an  opinion.  But  the  gentleman  knows,  that  where  "  doc- 
trines," "  tenets  of  faith  or  morals  revealed  by  God," — are  in 
question,  there  are  NO  OPINIONS  among  Catholics.  Christ 
made  a  revelation  of  facts,  truths, — Catholics  believe  them  as 
FACTS  and  truths — whilst  Protestants  make  opinions  of  them. 

When  Bellarmine  lays  down  the  rule  to  be  observed  with  *'  he- 
retics, thieves,  and  other  wicked  men,"  when  they  are  not  known 
distinctly  enough,  or  when  they  are  too  powerful  and  numerous, 
he  remarks,  that  he  gives  the  answer  given  to  the  same  question 
by  St.  Augustine,  who  is  in  high  veneration  among  the  Calvin- 
ists.  Why  did  the  gentleman  suppress  tliis?— Since  the  blame 
which  he  would  throw  on  Bellarmine,  belongs  equally  to  St.  Au- 
gustine. Another  deception  in  this  passage  is,  the  meaning  at- 
tached to  the  word  '*  extirpate."  He  is  speaking  of  the  text,  in 
the  gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  in  which  the  Saviour  was  explaining 
the  parable  of  the  "  good  seed,"  and  "  the  cockle,"— the  one 
representing  the  good,  the  other  the  wicked  ; — and  Bellarmine 
following  out  the  figure,  contended,  that  the  "cockle"  in  the 
field  of  the  Lord,  were  the  heretics,  thieves,  and  other  ivicked 
men,  who  were  to  be  rooted  or  plucked  out,  (extirpandi)  unless 
in  the  cases  which  he  excepted,  afier  St.  Augustine,  and  St. 
Chrysoslom,  This  is  the  fact,  and  the  gentleman  must  have 
known  it,  if  he  ever  saw  the  work.  He  takes  up  this  case,  sup- 
presses the  circumstances  that  explain  it,  metamorphoses  Bellar- 
mine's  private  sentiment,  into  a  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
carries  it  from  Rome  to  America, — makes  the  Catholic  citizens 
of  the  republic  adopt  it,  against  their  creed  and  conviction,  and 
with  a  logic  ivorthy  of  the  school  he  belongs  to,  infers  on  this 
evidence,  that  Catholics  are  bound  to  cut  the  throats  of  all  here- 
tics, as  soon  as  they  find  themselves  in  the  majority!  Are  they 
not  the  majority  in  France,  Austria,  Belgium,  Ireland,  Italy,  and 
in  short,  in  the  whole  Christian  world  ?  If  this  had  been  their 
doctrine,  could  they  not  have  destroyed  the  Reformers,  in  any 
stage  of  their  increase,  from  Martin  Luther,  up  to  millions?  Does 
the  gentleman  not  see  how  ridiculous,  in  presence  of  these  uni- 
versal FACTS, — public,  notorious,  and  obvious  to  common  sense 
— he  renders  himself,  when  supported  by  his  perversion  of  Bellar- 
mine, he  draws  the  following  sweeping  conclusion,  discreditable 
to  his  feelings,  and  to  the  understandings  of  the  audience. 
"  HENCE,  says  he,  in  the  United  States  we  may  expect  LIFE, 


219 

while  we  have  numbers.  You  see,  gentlemen,  what  our  friends  at 
Rome  {not priests,  but  cardinals,  whose  works  are  sanctioned  by 
the  Pope,  and  in  this  case  nepheio  of  the.  Pope,)  think  of  the  rights 
of  the  minorities  ;  they  are  summed  up  in  this, — they  may  die  by 
THE  HANDS  OF  PAPISTS."  This  is  silly  slander,  founded  on  yet 
more  silly  reasoning. 

The  gentleman  says,  that  Luther,  in  maintaining  **  that  the 
church  had  never  put  a  heretic  to'  death,"  meant,  not  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  but  some  other.  That  he,  after,  even  **  convicts  the 
Church  of  Rome  of  such  acts.''  I  thought  he  entertained  more 
respect  for  the  character  of  Luther,  than  to  charge  him  thus,  with 
a  palpable  equivocation.  I  call  upon  him,  therefore,  for  the  re- 
ference in  Luther's  works,  for  the  authority  on  which  he  makes 
these  two  statements.  1st.  In  which  he  states,  that  **  THE 
CHURCH    NEVER    BURNED  A    HERETIC," — and   2d.    in   which    he 

**  CONVICTS    THE    CHURCH    OF    RoME    OF  THESE    ACTS."       I  SUSpCCt 

that  something  is  wrong  here,  as  usual.  My  reason  is,  that 
history  is  entirely  silent,  touching  the  existence  of  TWO 
CHURCHES,  previous  to  Luther.  And  I  do  not  like  to  hear 
the  gentleman,  imputing  to  Luther,  a  contemptible  equivocation 
on  that  subject.  At  all  events,  I  wish  to  see  his  authorities  for 
the  statement. 

He  says,  that  Bellarmine  "  here  frankly  avows  persecution,  yea, 
the  right  and  the  duty  of  the  church  to  put  heretics  to  death, — 
and  pleads  to  Scripture  for  the  authority, — and  appeals  to  history 
for  the  fact,  that  the  church,  before   his  day,  had  put  an  almost, 
infinite  number  to  death.^'     Now,  although   Bellarmine's  opinion, 
on  the  matter  has   nothing  to  do  with  the  question  in  debate,  yet 
I  cannot  -hear    such    atrocious   imputations    falsely  made  against 
Bellarmine,  more  than  against  Luther.     The  question  was,  wbe- 
ther  "  heretics,  condemned   by  the  church,  might  be  punished 
by  temporal  punishments,  and  even  death."     Bellarmine  contend- 
ed, that  they   might,   and  should, — in  opposition    to    Huss  and 
Luther,  who  having  been  liable  to  this  consequence  in  their  own 
persons,  contended,  very  naturally,  that  they  should  not.     Hence, 
Bellarmine  begins  his  chapter  in  these  words.     ^^  Joannes  Huss, 
art.  14.  in  Concilio  Const antiensi,  sess.  15.  recitato,  asscruit,  non 
licere  hcereticum  incorrigibilem  tradere  s^eculari  potestati,  et 
PER  MITT  ERE  comburendum.     Idem  Luther  us  in  art,  33.  et  in 
assertione  ejusdem.''     "  John   Huss,   in  article  14.  in  the  15  ses- 
sion of  the  aforesaid  Council  of  Constance,  asserted,  that  it  is 
not  lawful  to  deliver  an  incorrigible  heretic  to  the  civil  power, 
and  PERMIT  HIM  to  be  burned.     Luther  asserted  the  same,  in 
article  33,  and  in  his  defence  of  that  article."     The  first  witness 
adduced    by  Bellarmine,  to   refute    both  Huss  and  Luther,  was 
JOHN  CALVIN.     But  what  does  he  undertake  to  prove  ?     He 
undertakes  to  prove,  that  it  is  lawful   for  the  church,  to  leave  in- 
corrigible heretics,  to  the  civil  laws  of  the  state,  even  where  the  pu' 


220 

nishment  of  heresy  is  burning.  :  This  was  the  only  point  in  dispute, 
between  him  and  Huss  or  Luther. 

He  lays  down  the  proposition  which  he  is  about  to  prove,  in^ 
these  words  . — 

**  Nos  igitur  breviter  ostendemus,  hareticos  incorrigibiles ,  ac 
prcBsertim  relap.ws,  posse  ac  debere  ab  ecclesia  rgici,  et  a  scscula- 
ribus  potestatibus,  temporalibus  pmnis  atque  ipsa  etiam  morte 
mulctari.^^ 

•♦  We,  therefore,  shall  briefly  shoiv,  that  incorrigible  heretics, 
and  especially  those  who  have  relapsed,  may  and  ought  to  be 

CAST     OUT     FROM    THE      CHURCH,    AND      BE     PUNISHED     BY    THE 

SECULAR,  POWERS,  ivith  temporal  punishment,  and  toith 
death  itself.^' 

Here,  then,  are  the  two  points  of  his  thesis :  — 
1st-  That  heretics  may  and  ought  to  be  cast  out  of  the 
CHURCH  :  and 

2d.  That  (being  cast  out)  they  may  and  ought  to  be  punish- 
ed WITH  CIVIL  PENALTIES,  ttud  evEJi  death,  (not  by  the  church,  as 
Mr.  Breckinridge  states  in  opposition  to  Bcllarmine's  own  words, 
but  BY  THE  CIVIL  POWER.  That  first  part  of  the  proposition  is 
held  by  the  gentleman  himself,  viz.  '*  That  heretics  may  and 
ought  to  he  cast  out  of  the  church."  Bellarmine,  then,  turning 
to  the  CIVIL  POWER,  says,  that  the  state  (saecularibus  potestatibus) 
•*  may  and  ought"  to  put  them  to  death  even,  or  lesser  punish- 
ments. The  arguments  by -which  he  attempts  to  prove  this  part 
of  the  proposition,  are  those  from  which  Mr.  B.  presents  the  gar- 
bled quotations,  which  he  shamefully  perverts.  Bellarmine  says, 
that  it  is  the  right  and  the  duty  OF  THE  STATE  to  pu- 
nish heretics,  with  civil  penalties  and  even  death.  Mr.  Breckin- 
ridge, contrary  to  ihis,  cliarges  him  with  "  avowing  the  right  and 
the  duty  of  the  church  to  put  them  to  death."  In  which  he 
only  furnishes  another  "  instance  "  to  prove  that  his  statements 
are  not  to  be  depended  on.  Every  instance  adduced  by  Bellar- 
mine of  this,  is  an  instance  by  the  authority  of  the  state  or  by 
some  Emperor;  but,  inasmuch  as  the  civil  rulers,  who  made  and 
executed  these  laws  against  heretics,  ivere  Catholics,  and  the 
church  had  *'  cast  those  heretics  out,"  he  speaks  of  it  as  if  the 
church  itself  had  executed  the  laws.  Does  he  say  that  there  is 
any  doctrine  of  the  church,  any  Icnv  of  the  church,  requiring  he- 
retics to  be  put  to  death?  No!  Does  he  say  the  church  ever 
put  them  to  death  except  by  not  shielding  them  uriLder  the  eccle- 
siastical laws?  No!  Does  he  say  that  she  ever  claimed  the 
right  to  put  them  to  death,  that  she  exercised  it,  that  she. ever 
put  any  one  to  death  for  heresy,  except  by  leaving  them  exposed 
to  the  law  of  the  state,  the  secular  power?  No!  Has  not  the 
gentleman  accused  Bellarmine  falsely?  He  will  probably  say, 
that  T  •*  defend  "  Bellarmine — yes,  from  unfounded  accusations, 
but  as  to  his  opinion  on  the  right  and  duty  of  the  magistrate,  or 


221 

temporal  powers  lo  punish  heretics,  I  hold  it  indefensible;  and 
the  only  way  I  can  account  for  his  having  attempted  to  maintain 
such  an  opinion,  is,  by  supposing  that  his  judgment  had  been 
twisted  into  obliquity  of  vision  by  the  sophistries  of  Calvin  and 
Bcza,  on  the  same  subject — for  he  places  their  works  and  example 
at  the  head  of  the  chapter. 

Such,  Mr.  President,  are  the  amount  and  detail  of  the  gentle- 
man's speech,  a  compound  of  false  premises,  supporting  false 
logic,  and  giving  occasion  to  that  kind  of  wholesale  assertion,  and 
bloated  declamation  which  constitute  the  very  acme  of  eloquence 
and  evangelism,  in  the  anti-popery  meetings  which  have  been 
organised  by  the  propaganda  of  bigotry  in  New  York.  Any  thing, 
sir,  that  is  said  to  blacken  popery,  being  of  course  Protestant  doc- 
trine, must  be  true.  This  delusion  has  lived  too  long,  and  spread 
too  far.  It  may  be  convenient  for  the  gentleman,  whenever 
he  shall  think  proper  to  make  good  his  promise  of  "  carry- 
ing on  the  controversy  by  himself.^^  But  it  will  not  suit 
here.  He  has  invited  me  to  come  and  examine  the  quality 
of  his  information,  and  the  character  of  his  reasoning.  It  is  in 
obedience  to  this  invitation  that  I  make  so  free  in  my  ana- 
lysis of  both.  The  child  of  his  anti-popery  zeal,  would  be,  per- 
haps, admired  elsewhere,  but  when  he  sends  it  forth  here,  as  a 
young  giant,  that  is,  to  slay  the  man  of  sin  in  the  United  States, 
I  have  only  to  bring  it  near  the  light,  and  hold  it  up.  The  first 
ray  that  falls  upon  it  from  the  lamp  of  truth  in  history,  and  of 
logic  in  debate,  proves  it  to  be  a  little  monster  of  moral  deformity, 
which,  instead  of  killing  the  pope,  will  only  disgrace  its  parent- 
age. 

By  the  way,  there  is  one  thing  that  has  struck  me  as  somewhat 
extraordinary.  It  is,  that  the  gentleman,  after  having  been  in  the 
field,  publicly  against  the  Catholic  religion,  these  several  years,  is 
evidently  unprepared  for  the  facts  of  the  question.  He  was  un- 
prepared for  the  case  of  the  Albigenses,  and  the  facts  connected 
with  it.  He  was  unprepared  for  the  facts  regarding  Huss  and 
the  Council  of  Constance.  He  was  unprepared  for  the  meaning 
of  "  anathema,"  according  to  the  facts.  He  was  unprepared  for 
the  character  of  the  inquisition,  according  to  the  facts  of  history. 
He  was  familiar  with  the  calumnies  which  are  founded  on  all 
these  subjects,  and  made  abundant  use  of  them.  But  the  facts, 
which  he  had  never  condescended  to  examine  at  the  original 
source,  took  him  by  surprise  ;  and  he  adjourned  the  topics  with 
a — promise.  A  gentleman  who  has  kept  himself  so  long  adver- 
tised as  the  champion,  should  have  been  better  prepared  :  one 
who  had  so  long  apd  so  often  instructed  the  public,  should  not 
have  been  obliged  to  wait  for  information  on  subjects  with  which 
he  had  professed  himself  so  well  acquainted.  The  unexpected- 
ness of  the  position  should  have  been  an  excuse  for  tne,  if  I  were 
found  unable  to  meet  the  gentleman  at  every  point.  It  was  im- 
possible for  me  to  have  made  any  special  preparation,  and  yet  to 


222 

my  surprise,  my  arguments  on  the  very  topics  on  which  the  gen- 
tleman has  been  so  clever,  when  there  was  no  one  to  oppose  him^ 
are  obliged  to  wait  unanswered  till  the  advent  of  •*  neiv  lights 
And  as  I  never  wish  to  make  an   assertion  without  supporting  it 
by  proof,  I  give  an  additional  instance  of  a  topic  for  which  I  ven- 
ture to  predict,  that  not  only  he,  but  the  authorities  at  Princeton 
are  unprepared.     Has  he  ever  asserted  in  public,  or  proclaimed  in 
print,  that  in  the  Catholic  Church  the  Scriptures  in  the  vernacular 
language  are  withheld  from  the  laity  ?     If  he  has,  he  has  aided  in 
perpetuating  the  calumny,  without  taking  pains  to  know,  or  make 
known  the  facts.     Doctor  Miller  has  this  very  calumny  in  his  In- 
troductory Essay,  coupled  with  others   "  whose  name  is,  legion." 
"  Does  she  not,"  says  he,  "  after  all  her  multiplied  denial  of  the 
fact  continue  to  lock  up  the  Scripture  from  common  people  ?"  No, 
Doctor,  not  at  all ;  you  are  misleading  the  public  {unintentionally ^ 
I  hope)  when  you  say  so.     Do  you  ask  for  proof?  Then  I  give  it. 
It  consists  of  the  following  facts,  which  you  should  have  known. 
The  Catholics  in  this  country  have  published  more  editions  of 
the  Scriptures  in  the  English  language  than  any  other  denomina- 
tion, during  the  same  time.  They  have  one  in  folio,  four  in  quarto, 
one  in  octavo, — making  six  different  editions  of  the  whole 
BIBLE.     Of  the  New  Testament,  there  have  been  published  sepa- 
rately, one  in  4to.,  two  in  8vo,  two  in  12mo.,  and  two  in  32mo., 
making  seven  editions  of  the  testament  separately — thir- 
teen EDITIONS  in  all,  and  one  in  French,  for  the  French  Catholics, 
published  under  the. auspices,  and  by  the  direction  of  Bishop  Cheve- 
rus,     Protestants  do  not  buy  them, — the  clergy  do  not  require 
them  in  English,  having  them  in  other  languages,  especially  the 
Latin.     Who  bought  them,  and  paid  the  publisher  for  printing, 
and  even  stereotyping   them?     The   "COMMON   PEOPLE," 
from  whom.  Doctor  Sliller  says,  falsely,  that  "  they  are  kept 
LOCKED  UP."     Is  the   gentleman    prepared   to  meet  me   on  this 
topic,  in  regard  to  which  he  has  so  often  asserted  the  calumny  ? 
Shameonthemen  who  can  thus  bear  "  false  witness  against  their 
neighbour." 

Mr.  Breckinridge  may  say  that  in  this  country  the  Scriptures 
could  not  be  kept  out  of  the  hands  of  the  people  ;  and  that  though 
the  charge  is  false,  as  regards  American  and  English  Catholics, 
yet  it  is  true  where  the  power  of  the  church  prevails,  as  in  Italy. 
This  is  equally  false,  and  the  proof  is  the  letter  of  Pope  Pius  VI. 
addressed  to  Martini,  in  approbation  of  his  labours,  as  translator 
of  the  Bible  into  Italian,  for  the  use  of  the  *^*  common  people.^'' 
For  this,  and  other  service  to  religion,  said  Martini  was  made 
archbishop.  This  reference  to  the  Italian  Bibje,  reminds  me  ot  a 
pledge  given  by  me  in  presence  of  the  society,  which  it  is  fitting 
that  1  should  redeem. 

You  remember,  Mr.  President,  the  evening  on  which  DOC- 
TOR BROWNLEE  honoured  the  meeting  with  his  presence,  I 


223 

had  to  answer  the  young  gentleman  who  opened  the  debate  with 
so  many  beafttiful  figures  of  speech,  I  had  to  answer  the  Rev. 
Doctor  Branily,  who  thought  that  it  Was  possible  and  incumbent 
on  me  to  "prove  the  negative."  I  had  to  answer  the  gentleman 
himgelf,  who  had  come  prepared.  In  his  speech,  he  brandished 
the  usual  calumnies  around  the  head  of  **  popery."  Among  others, 
this  very  one  of  Doctor  Miller's,  about  keeping  the  Scriptures 
"  locked  up  from  the  common  people.'^  In  my  answer  to  his  speech, 
I  mentioned  as  a  refutation  of  this  particular  calumny^  that  the 
Catholics  had  published  FORTY  EDITIONS  of  the  Scriptures 
in  Italian,  before  the  first  Protestant  edition  came  out,  which  was 
that  of  Geneva  in  1562.  This  was  something  new  lo  the  bench 
and  to  the  meeting.  Dr.  Brownlee,  as  you  recollect,  stood  up  to 
interrupt  me,  and  on  being  informed  that  he  must  address  himself 
to  the  chair,  he  stated  that  he  wished  to  ask  a  question  "for  in- 
formation,^' and  on  leave  being  granted,  he  inquired,  "  whether 

THOSE  EDITIONS  OF  THE  ScRIPTURES  WERE  IN  THE  VERNACULAR  LAN- 
GUAGE ?  I  replied  that  they  were  ;  to  which  his  rejoinder  was, 
"  I  DENY  IT."  Then,  sir,  I  promised  io prove  it,  and  show  that 
the  Doctor  ought  not  to  deny  the  existence  of  facts,  after  having 
avowed  his  ignorance  of  them,  and  his  desire  to  be  **  informed." 
Now  for  the  PROOFS. 

1st.  In  the  year  1471,  sixteen  years  after  \\\e  first  book  was 
printed  with  type,  and  fifty  years  before  that  fusion  of  doctrine 
into  private  opinion,  which  is  called  the  "  Reformation,"  and 
twelve  years  before  the  birth  of  Martin  Luther,  the  Bible  was 
printed  and  published  in  the  Italian  language,  in  VENICE.  This 
edition  was  published  in  August,  as  appears  by  the  title-page; 
**  impresso  fu  questo  volume  net  Valma  patria  di  Vcnitia  negV  an- 
ni  de  la  salutefera  incarnatione  del  Figliolo  de  Veterno  et  omnipo- 
tente  Deo,  1471,  in  Kalendc  di  Augusio;  per  Vindelino  Spira." 
It  was  the  translation  of  Nicholas  Malhemi,  a  monk.  Another 
edition  was  published  in  October  of  the  same  year,  in  the  same 
city,  and  a  third  jn  Rome,  making  three  editions  in  large  folio  in 
the  year  1471.  In  1475,  a  fourth  was  published  "  in  Pignerolo,per 
Gio  de  Rossi."  Fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  editions  in  Venice,  all 
three  in  1477,  of  different  type,  and  the  last  being  an  **  improve- 
ment" on  the  translation  of  Malhemi,  by  Squarzafico,  as  stated  iii 
the  preface.  Eighth,  VENICE,  in  1481.  Ninth  and  tenth,  VE- 
NICE, in  1484,  when  Martin  Luther  was  a  baby  of  about  one 
year  old.  Eleventh,  VENICE,  in  1487,  a  curious  and  elegant 
edition,  a  copy  of  which  David  Clement  saw  in  the  biblical  col- 
lection of  the  Duchess  of  Luneburg,  "  nitide  et  accurate  excussa.^' 
The  twelfth  and  thirteenth  have  disappeared  entirely.  The  four- 
teenth and  fifteenth  editions  are  of  the  years  1502  and  1507.  The 
latter  is  the  first  edition  of  the  celebrated  GIUNTI.  The  editions 
pf  1517,  '25,  '32,  '35,  '46,  '53,  '58,  all  of  Malhemi,  in  folio,  bring 
the  number  to  twenty-one.      The  editions   from  twenty-two  to 


224 

thirty-five,  both  inclusive,  were  the  translation  from  the  Hebrew, 
of  Bruccioii,  published  by  Giunti,  VENICE,  with  i\\e privilege  of 
the  seriate ;  the  first  appeared  in  1532.  A  version  by  another 
translator,  Marmochini,  a  Dominican,  which  he  professed  to  have 
made  from  the  Hebrew*,  and  Greek,  was  published  by  Giunti, 
first  in  1538,  and  again  in  1546,  making  editions  thirty-sixth  and 
thirty-seventh.  Edition  thirty-eighth,  was  by  another  translator, 
with  di  poetical  persion  of  Job  and  of  the  Psalms,  in  1547, 

The  39lh  and  40th  editions  were  published  in  1541  and  1551, 
being  the  translation  of  Bruccioii  loith  some  alterations.  Elfven 
years  after  the  date  of  the  last,  and  ninety-one  years  after  that  of 
theirs/  edition  of  the  Bible  in  Italian,  the  Calvinists  altered 
the  version  of  Bruccioii  to  suit  their  purpose,  as  the  editor  declares 
in  the  preface,  and  published  in  Geneva,  the  first  protestant 
edition  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  Italian  language.  But  on  what 
authority  does  all  this  rest  1  Must  I  send  for  "  Latin  to  Cambridge, 
England,^'  to  prove  it  ?  No,  sir.  The  proof  is  the  testimony  of 
David  Clement,  A  CALVINISTIC  MINISTER,  and  libra- 
rian to  the  king  of  Prussia,  in  his  "  Bibliotheque  curieuse,  ov 
catalogue  raisonne  de  livres  difficiles  a  trouver,"  in  ix  vol.  4to 
published  at  Gottingen,  1750 — 60 — (See  letter  B.)  What  will 
the  gentleman  say  for  his  fanatical  associate.  Doctor  Brownlee, 
who  DENIED  this  fact?  What  will  he  say  for  his  own  calumnies, 
and  those  of  Doctor  Miller,  in  maintaining  that  the  Catholic  re- 
ligion is  hostile  to  the  Scriptures,  and  "  locks  them  up  from  the 
common  people?''''  Sir,  these  gentlemen  ought  to  instruct  them- 
selves before  they  teach  others,  and  if  they  really  are  ignorant  of 
these  facts,  it  is  a  disgrace  to  the  age  that  they  should  labour  as  they 
do  in  regard  to  this  matter,  to  engraft  their  own  ignorance  of  the 
fact,  on  the  American  mind,  as  a  part  of  knowledge  and  educa^ 
tion. 

What  was  true  of  Italy,  was  equally  true  of  Germany,  France., 
Spain  and  Belgium.  Does  the  gentleman  deni/  it,  like  Doctor 
Brownlee  ?  If  he  does,  I  pledge  myself  to  prove  it.  But  I  took 
Italy,  the  heart  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Will  the  gentleman, 
therefore,  as  he  loves  truth,  aid,  with  the  pen  that  has  contributed 
to  lead  the  uneducated  astray  on  this  subject,  to  undeceive  them  ? 
Will  not  GOD  approve  of  such  a  course,  proceeding  from  such  a 
motive? 

But  why  was  a  partial  restriction  put  to  the  reading  and  circu- 
lation of  the  Scripture  afterwards?  The  reason  is  obvious.  The 
religious  wars  in  Germany,  France  and  Switzerland — the  crimes 
and  fanaticism  that  had  been  witnessed,  and  for  all  which  was  quo- 
ted, some  te:ct  of  Scripture,  as  authority,  had  presented  a  neiv  and 
'alarming  view  of  the  case.  When  the  demagogues  of  the  reforma- 
tion, in  order  to  seduce  the  people  from  allegiance  to  all  powers 
but  themselves,  taught  them  that  they  coiild  understand  the  Scrip- 
tures without  difliculty,  and  engaging  them  in  wars  and  sedition 


225 

against  their  governments,  applied  the  principle  of  Mahomet  with 
more  subtlety,  but  with  equal  effect,  to  persuade  them,  that  in  do- 
ing so,  they  were  contending  "  for  the  gospel,"  then  it  was 
deemed  prudent  to  regulate  the  circulation  of  the  Scripture  in 
the  vernacular  language,  until  the  delirium  of  the  social  and  reli- 
gious condition,  which  the  abuse  of  the  Scripture  and  the  degra- 
dation of  its  character  had  produced,  should  have  subsided  or 
passed  away. 

The  regulation  was  restrictive,  local,  temporary.  And  never 
was  PROHIBITORY,  UNIVERSAL,  or  PERPETUAL,  as  Protestaut  misrep- 
resentation has  asserted.  The  facts  of  the  immense  circulation 
of  the  Scriptures  in  the  various  languages  of  Europe,  before  the 
reformation,  {eonsiderivg  how  recently  printing  had  been  invented) 
are  such  as  should  make  these  false  accusers  ashamed  of  their  vo- 
cation. The  circulation  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  United  States, 
where  the  Catholics,  few  as  they  are,  have  had  them  in  every  size 
and  form,  is  a  direct  refutation  of  the  calumny,  by  facts,  against 
which  it  is  ridiculous  for  them  to  reason.  Even  the  Spaniards, 
in  whose  country  the  Inquisition  was  most  jealous  and  oppressive, 
have  their  Spanish  Bible,  by  the  Bishop  of  Segovia,  a  copy  of 
which,  mutilated  by  the  Bible  Society  of  New  York,  I  now  hold 
in  my  hand.  It  is  regarded  as  the  word  of  Gotl,  and  yet  it  is  sent 
by  the  Bible  Society,  to  the  ignorant  Spaniards  of  South  America, 
with  a  FALSEHOOD  printed  on  the  title-page.  It  purports  to  be 
from  the  Vulgate,  as  translated  by  the  Bishop  of  Segovia,  in  order 
not  to  startle  the  prejudices  or  suspicions  of  the  Spaniards.  And 
yet  the  books,  which  Protestants  call  "  Apocryphal,"  but  which 
Catholics  believe  to  be  inspired,  are  all  omitted.  With  this 
omission,  of  which  nothing  is  said,  it  is  no  longer  the  Bible  of  the 
Bishop  of  Segovia,  and  consequently,  it  carries  on  its  title-page  a 
falsehood.  Now,  let  not  the  gentleman  say  that  in  this,  1  ca- 
lumniate  the  Bible  Society,  or  the  gentlemen  who  compose  it.  I 
state  the  FACT.  It  is  a  fraud,  known  as  such  to  its  authors, 
whoever  they  may  be,  and  ought  to  be  denounced  by  every  ho- 
nourable member  of  that  society.  They  ought  not  to  associate, 
nor  allow  their  agents  to  associate,  witfi  the  circulation  of  the 
"  WORD  OF  GOD,"  so  legitimate  an  evidence  of  their  holding, 
or  at  le^st  practising  the  maxim,  that  the  "  cwc/ justifies  the  means" 


29 


22  G 


**  Is  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion^  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty .?" 


AFFIRMATIVE  VI.— MR.  BRECKINRIDGE. 

Mr.  President»^ — Aifter  holding  the  copy  of  my  speech  aboui 
thirty  days,  the  gentleman  has  returned  m.e  his  ivindy  response^ 
During  half  of  that  time,  he  also  had  in  his  possession  my  reply 
on  the  alternate  question  also,  though  by  agreement  his  reply  was 
due  on  the  delivery  of  my  speech  on  the  affirmative.  I  do  not 
ivonder  at  his  delay.  I  shall  wonder,  if  he  ever  permits  this 
debate  to  see  the  light.  But  I  here  notice  these  facts  to  show 
the  public  in  what  a  position  the  man  stands  who  complains  that 
I  am  never  prepared  to  meet  him.  Was  I  not  prepared  to  meet 
him  in  the  discussion  ?  Did  I  not  meet  him  on  all  the  points  as 
they  arose  ?  And  after  the  debate  was  brought  to  a  close,  is  not 
the  whole  Society  witness  to  the  fact,  that  he  refused  to  publish 
the  reports  of  the  stenographer ;  and  insisted  on  delaying  even 
the  tvriting  out  anew  of  the  debate,  as  we  are  now  doing,  until 
he  should  go  to  Mexico? 

No,  sir,  the  fact  is  this.  The  gentleman  finding  his  cause 
pressed  sorely,  tried  first  to  divert  me  from  its  exposure,  by 
shifting  the  grounds  of  the  discussion.  But  I  chose  to  pursue  my 
own  course,  as  it  is  my  right  and  duty  to  do,  while  in  the  a^r- 
mative.  I  did  not  choose  to  discuss  the  character  of  the  Inqui- 
sition^ till  I  had  finished  the  direct  proof  oi  the  enmity  of  his  Church 
to  Kherty.  He  then  tried  the  virtue  of  attacking  my  reputation 
through  the  contents  of  a  former  controversy.  I  then  turned  aside, 
for  the  greater  part  of  one  evening,  to  meet  and  expose  his  malig- 
nity and  falsehoods,  to  the  satisfaction,  I  am  sure,  of  every  candid 
mind;  and  afterward  resumed  the  line  of  my  discussion.  In  the 
writing  out  of  this  debate,  he  has  bespangled  every  part  of  it  with 
these  personal  attacks,  and  these  vain  efforts  at  diversion  from  the 
main  question.  Besides  having  met  these  personalities  in  my 
iate  controversy  with  him,  and  besides,  having  exposed  them  in  the 
oral  debate,  I  have  met  them  as  they  have  been  brought  up  by 
him  in  the  manuscript.  Some  of  them  reappear,  in  meagre?  and 
dejected  forms,  in  his  last  speech,  evidently  showing  that  the 
author,  having  little  to  say  for  his  cause,  wishes  to  do  all  he  can 
against  his  adversary.  Pascal,  a  Catholic,  but  a  Jatisenist,  has 
explained  all  this  in  his  fifteenth  Letter,  (Provincial  Letters,)  of 


227 

which  the  heading  is  this :  "  the  Jesuits,  omit  calumny  in  their 
catalogue  of  crimes,  and  make  no  scruple  of  using  it  against 
'their  enemies,''  Pascal,  whom  Mr.  Hughes  has  denounced,  ex- 
poses the  Jesuits,  whom  Mr.  Hughes  has  praised,  for  wickedly 
justifying  horrible  calumnies  known  to  be  so,  in  self  defence, 
**It  is  certain,"  says  Caramuel,(l)  "  it  is  a  probable  opinion  that 
it  is  no  mortal  sin,  to  bring  a  false  accusation  for  the  sake  of 
preserving  one's  honour,  for  it  is  maintained  by  twenty  grave 
doctors,  Gaspar,  Hurtado,  DecastilUis,  &;c.  Hence,  if  this  doctrine 
be  not  probable,  there  is  scarcely  any  one  that  is  so  in  the  whole 
system  of  divinity."  Well  might  Pascal  exclaim,  "  Oh,  what  an 
execrablejysterri  is  this  I"  This  is  the  morality  of  the  school 
which  th'e  gentleman  sustains ;  which  is  head  of  popery  in  this 
country,  and  which  adequately  explains  all  Mr.  Hughes's  calum- 
nies. 

By  these  attacks  the  gentleman  compelled  me  to  hold  iip  three 
cases  oi  fraud  committed  by  him,  before  the  whole  society,  viz. : 

1.  The  case  of  Mosheim,  where  he  omitted  ihe  first  sentence,  and 
read  what  the  historian  had  said  of  a  set  oi  fanatics,  and  told  us 
it  was  a  description  of  the  Albigenses.  ivho  were  not  named  there  ; 
and  of  whom  the  same  writer  gives  a  tolally   different  account. 

2.  The  case  in  which  he  took  one  sentence  o^  mine  from  a  certain 
page,  and  another,  some  fifty  pages  off;  and  by  putting  them  to- 
gether, made  me  say  the  very  reverse  of  what  I  had  really  said, 
and  then  charged  it  on  me  as  falsehood.  3.  The  case  in  whit-h 
he  omitted  tchole  pages  of  a  manuscript  v/hich  he  was  reading  as 
part  of  his  speech,  and  yet  handed  it  in  to  be  reported,  thus  rob- 
bing me  of  my  time,  (for  we  spoke  by  portions  of  time  alternately,) 
and  thus  dishonourably  charging  Presbyterians  with  horrible 
iwinciples  and  crimes,  which  I  did  7Wt  knoiv  were  in  the  paper, 
and  which  wowld  have  gone  before  the  public  unknown,  and  of 
course,  unanswered  by  me,  if  I  had  not  demanded  a  copy  from 
the  stenographer.  These  were  openly  exposed,  and  charged  upon 
him  publicly.  They  have  not  been,  they  cannot  be  explained. 
When  theyoccurred,  Ishould  have  left  the  discussion,  but  for  the 
sake  of  the  cause :  for  since  that  moment  he  can  have  no  claim  to 
my  respect;  nor  can  I  own  him  as  an  equal,  or  a  gentleman.  I 
once  tried  to  explain  Mr.  Hughes's  conduct  by  the  apology  of  his 
bad  breeding  and  ignorance  of  the  decent  proprieties  of  life.  Now, 
we  must  refer  all  to  the  morality  of  Jesuitism.  And  now  let  the 
gentleman  explain,  if  he  can ;  deny,  he  dare  not-;  and  even  should 
he  be  unable  to  do  it,  if  he  will  repent,  ^nd  reform,  I  \w\\\  forgive. 

As  to  Caranza ;  I  have  already,  and  fully  explained,  as  he  well 
knows,  the  omission  of  a  single  word,  ''prsesentibus,"  by  mistake, 
which  he  knows  did  not  in  the  least  affect  the  sense.  And  I  call 
on  him  to  tell  me  publicly,  whether  the  extract,  from  the  third 

(1)N.  1151. 


228 

cliapter  of  Fourth  Lateran,  contains  one  word  that  is  not  in  the 
original.  He  says,  the  translation  overnms  Caranza.from  whom 
I  quote.  If  then,  what  I  give  in  English,  is  not  in  the  original 
Latin,  here  will  be  the  way  to  detect  me.  If  he  will  say  that 
translation  is  woi  fail hf id ;  if,  what  overruns  Caranza,  is  forged^ 
let  him  say  so.  If  he  will,  then  /  will  tell  him  what  translation  I 
followed.  Biil^his  declaration,  that  Caranza'' s  Latin  is  overrun  by 
my  English,  he  cither  asserts  that  I  fabricate  matter,  or  else 
that  Caranza  has  not  given  all.  The  former  he  dare  not  say. 
The  latter  is  the  fact.  Caranza  suppresses  much  of  the  decree. 
I  gave  a  page  of  his  abridgment,  and  gave  the  continued  sense  of 
the  decree;  following  him  as  far  as  he  ivent,  and  then  continuing 
it  from  other  sources.  This,  Mr.  H.  knows.  Let  him  venture  to 
deny  it.  Yet  he  cliarges  me  with  garbling  the  decree  ;  and  jus- 
tifies Caranza  for  doing  the  very  same  thing.  And  now  I  chal- 
lenge Mr.  H.  to  show  that,  in  my  long  extracts  from  Caranza,  I 
have  at  all  affected  the  continued  sense,  or  mistranslated,  in  the 
smallest  measure,  a  single  word.  My  citations  were  taken  large- 
ly from  consecutive  portions  of  the  infamous  decree,  to  prove  the 
persecution  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  I  have  given  the  whole 
chapter  in  my  second  speech,  first  night.  Let  any  reader  refer 
to  the  former  Controversy.  I  challenge  Mr.  Hughes  to  cite  the 
passage  in  his  next  speech,  and  show  that  my  said  extracts  altered 
the  sense  of  the  canon.  If  not,  his  charges  are  base.  If  I  did, 
let  him  show  it. 

Mr.  H.'s  evasion  about  the  false  charge  of  "forging  Latin  for 
the  Council  of  Trent,"  which  he  so  ludicrously  urged  against  me, 
is  too  palpable  to  call  for  any  thing  but  my  pity  at  his  embarrass- 
ment. When,  by  accident,  I  omitted  one  word  in  ii  page  of  Latin, 
he  says  I  ^^ suppressed;'^  when  I  cite  a  passage,  and  give  a  word 
too  much,  he  says  it  is  "  a  forgery.''^  I  then  refer  to  the  passage 
with  new  proofs  o^  its  genuineness;  he  says  I  am  right  in  the  letter, 
but  wrong  in  the  spirit.  When  of  a  decree  covering  several  pages, 
I  give  the  substance  in  one  page,  he  says,  I  suppress  a  pai^t. 
Yet  at  the  end,  I  overrun  a  papal  abridgment,  and  give  an  addi- 
tional sentence,  from  another  and  fuller  work,  he  charges  me 
with  doing  wrong  again.  Because  I  say  I  follow  the  abridgment, 
(as  far  as  it  goes,)  I  sin  if  I  go  any  farther,  though  every  word  I 
add  is  a  part  of  the  decree  which  the  popish  abridger  had  left 
out  J  J  For  such  attacks,  there  is  no  explanation  but  the  despera- 
tion of  the  man. 

His  explanation  of  his  fraud  on  my  quotation,  I  cannot  receive. 
It  will  not  do,  Mr.  H.  Your  character  calls  you  to  try  it  once 
morel 

.  He  rings  new  changes  on  the  old  charge,  and  the  true  one 
made  by  me,  that  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  gives  only 
four  ivords  of  the  second  commandment.  The  copy  to  which  I 
referred  is  in  the  public  library  of  New  York.     When  he  called 


'  229 

\ip  the  subject,  on  the  rostrum,  two  years  after  I  had  asserted  the 
fact,  (in  the  first  Controversy  with  him,)  I  promised  to  get  the 
book,  and  exhibit  it.  In  due  time  I  did  so.  It  was  just  as  1  had 
said.  The  four  words  were  given;  the  rest,  instead  of  being 
announced,  were  suppressed,  and  brought  up  many  pages  after, 
in  the  tail  of  the  exposition,  and  kept  out  of  view  as  much  as  pos- 
sible !  That  the  gentleman  produced  some  copies  of  one  or  more 
editions,  in  which  the  whole  was  honestly  announced  on  one 
page,  is  only  a  proof,  that  Borne  is  wise.  She  gives  out  the 
word  of  God  as  she  must ;  and  has  different  degrees  for  different 
regions  of  the  earth.  Sir,  every  scholar  knows  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  is  guilty  in  this  thing.  She  even  mistranslates  the  words 
of  the  Bible,  which  forbid  us  "  to  bow  down'"'  to  graven  images ; 
falsely  rendering  them  "  adore,^^  &;c.;  for  you  know  her  people 
do  bow  down  to  graven  images.  But  in  most  cases  the  Church 
has  suppressed  the  true  second  commandment,  after  merging  it  in 
another,  and  splitting  the  unique  tenth,  so  as  to  make  two  ofit; 
and  thus  covers  the  fraud.  That  Church  has  different  editions  of 
her  standards  for  different  countries ;  and  whenever  she  dare,  she 
suppresses  the  commandment  which  forbids  idolatry,  I  will 
proTe  what  I  say.  The  most  Rev.  James  Butler's  Catechism, 
revised,  enlarged,  improved,  and  recommended  by  the  four  Roman 
Catholic  Archbishops  of  Ireland,  printed  at  New  York  in  1826, 
at  page  21,  has  the  following  question  and  answer; — 

"  Lesson  XIV.  On  the  Commandments. 

"  Ques.  Say  the  ten  commandments  of  God. 

"  Ans.  I.  I  am  the  Lord,  thy  God ;  thou  shalt  not  have  strange 
Gods  before  me,  &c. 

"II.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord,  thy  God,  in 
vain. 

'♦  III.  Remember  that  thou  keep  holy  the  Sabbath  day."  Is 
there  any  thing  here  about  images?  Not. a  word  !  Surely,  they 
who  keep  the  Bible  from  the  people,  ought,  at  least,  to  give  them  the 
ten  commandments  in  full !  The  next  proof  is  from  a  Philadelphia 
edition,  published  by  authority,  by  Eugene  Cummisliey  in  1827. 
Not  one  word  is  here  about  graven  images.  Next — Mr.  Cum- 
miskey,  four  years  after,  gives  another  edition.  There  was  time 
for  repentance.  But  still  the  same  thing.  Fourth  proof,  "  The 
Christian  Doctrine,"  composed  by  Father  Ledesma,  Priest  of  the 
Society  of  Jesus,  and  printed  "  by  perinission  of  the  superiors,''^ 
A.  D.  1609  and  1624,(1)  gives  the  following  version  of  the  com- 
mandments. 

"  I.  I  am  the  Lord,  thy  God;  thou  shalt  have  no  other  Gods 
but  me. 

"  II.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  God  in  vain. 

"  III.  Remember  to  sanctify  the  holy  days."  Is  there  any 
thing  here  about  graven  images?     Yet,  while  suppressing  the 

(1)  See  Preface  to  Via  Tula. 


230 

iato  of  God  against  idolatry,  lie  adds,  (wickedly,)  a  charge  to 
keep  Roman  holy  days! 

.Again;  the  version  used  in  Ireland  has  not  one  word  of  the 
second  commandment. 

And  again;  the  version  used  in  the  Highlands  of  Scotland  (1) 
wholly  suppresses  the  second  commandment.  And  now,  no  one 
need  be  at  a  loss  to  understand  the  reason,  to  estimate  the  guilt, 
or  know  the  fact  of  this  suppression.  I  ask  now,  who  is  the 
calumniator?  And  as  /  have  no  Jesuit-morality  to  shelter  7ne, 
I  wish  the  calumny  to  attach  where  it  belongs.  I  know,  however, 
that  it  is  hard  for  Mi.  Hughes  to  explain,  or  disprove  this  terrible 
iniquity. 

As  the  gentleman's  ideas  fluctuate  in  elegant  confusion,  through 
his  pages,  it  matters  little  in  what  order  the  reply  to  them  be  ar- 
ranged. We  make  the  order  of  importance  our  guide;  and  next 
return  to  Cardinal  Bellarmine.  He  says,  that  I  "  introduce  Bel- 
larmine  discussing  as  an  individual,  in  the  exercise  of  his  private 
opinion,  the  proposition,  '  that  heretics  may  he  punished  with 
temporal  punishments,  (penalties,)  and  even  with  death.^  "  But, 
sir,  the  gentleman  well  knows  that  Bellarmine  spealvs,  like  De- 
voTi,  under  the  Pope's  expressed  sanction,  and  utters  the  true 
Catholic  doctrine !  The  Pope  did  hang  him  up  in  the  Index  for 
one  error,  viz.;  for  saying,  that  the  Pope  had  only  indirect  tem- 
poral POWER,  whereas  he  ought  to  have  said,  he  has  DIRECT 
temporal  power.  The  rest  is  a/)provef/,. and. declared  to  contain 
no  doctrine  contrary  to  the  Catholic  faith.  It  is  no  private 
opinion,  then;  but  the  publicly  approved,  avowed  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  !  If  Calvin  agreed  with  Bellarmine,  then  Calvin 
was  so  far  wrong.  But  Calvin  spoke  his  tenet;  Bellarmine  spoke 
for  the  Pope,  his  master,  and  his  Church.  Mr.  Hughes  says, 
that  infamous  passage  which  directs  to  kill  heretics,  if  Catholics 
have  the  majority,  was  derived  from  Augustin,  by  the  author. 
Yes,  and  that  is  another  proof,  that  it  is  Catholic  doctrine;  "  the 
consent  of  the  fathers.''^  Chrysostom,  also,  says  the  same.  Mr. 
Hughes  say^,  again,  that  I  "  suppress  the  circumstances  which 
explain  it."  What  are  they?  The  above  is  one  of  them!  Another 
is,  "  that  Bellarmine  is  speaking  of  the  text  (passage)  in  the  Gos- 
pel of  St.  Matthew,  in  which  the  Saviour  was  explaining  the 
parable  of  the  good  seed  and  the  cockle ;  the  one  representing  the 
good,  the  other  the  wicked;  and  Bellarmine  following  out  the 
figure,  contended  that  the  cockles  in  the  field  of  the  Lord,  were 
the  heretics,  thieves,  and  other  wicked  men,  who  were  to  be 
rooted  or  plucked  out,  (extirpandi,)  unless  in  the  cases  which  he 
excepted,  after  St.  Augustin  and  St.  Chrysostom."  Now,  if  this 
be  not  enough  to  prove,  that  Bellarmine  tho2(ght  it  a  papal  doc- 
trine to  extirpate  heretics,  unless,  to  use  his  own  words,  "  thev 

(1)  See  M'Gavin  on  this  subject. 


231 

ARB  STRONGER  THAN  OURSELVES,"  I  kiiow  not  the  force  of  words. 
But  see  how  Mr.  Hughes  and  Bellarmine  reason.  The  Lord  said, 
"  let  the  wheat  and  the  cockle  grow  together  till  the  harvest ;^^ 
i.  e.  *♦  the  end  of  the  world.'''  Bellarmine  says  no!  Pluck  them 
up  now,  if  you  can!  Mr.  Hughes  says,  that  I  "  suppress  circum- 
stances." What  circumstances?  Does  Bellarmine  say,  it  is  his 
opinion !  No.  "  He  says,  in  the  same  chapter,  (in  answer  to  the 
objection,  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  mercy  of  the  Churchy  to 
wish  the  death  of  heretics,)  "  the  Church  has  tried  all  other 
methods,  before  she  coqld  be  induced  to  inflict  this  extreme 
punishment,  (death) ;  for,  at  first,  as  we  have  said  before,  she 
only  excommunicated ;  but  afterwards,  seeing  this  would  not  suf- 
fice, SHE  added  pecuniary  penalties;  then  confiscation  of  goods; 
afterwards  exile ;  at  length  she  reached  this,  (death) ;  as  is  sufii- 
ciently  apparent  from  the  various  laws  of  the  ancient  emperors, 
in  the  chapter  entitled  De  Heretics^  Here  is  no  opinioyi;  but  a 
fact;  viz.,  that  as  soon  as  the  emperors  allowed  her,  the  Church 
DID  fine,  rob,  banish,  and  kill  heretics! 

But  Mr.  Hughes  asks,  "  Are  not  Catholics  in  the  majority  in 
France?"  No.  Protestants  and  infidels  are  now!  Once  they 
W6re.  And  what  then  ?  Has  Mr.  Hughes  forgotten  the  edict  of 
Nantz,  and  St.  Bartholomew's  day?  "In  Austria?"  But  are 
Protestants  tolerated  in  Austria  ?  So  as  to  have  room  to  increase  ? 
'*  In  Belgium  ?"  But  she  goes  with  France.  Have  you  forgotten 
the  Belgian  bishops,  who  said,  that  it  was  anti-Catholic  to  tolerate 
any  other  religion?  "In  Ireland?"  It  has  been  tried  there! 
Force  alone  has  hindered  it!  "  In  Italy?"  Are  Protestants  tole- 
rated in  Italy,  Mr.  Hughes  ?  "  And  the  Reformers  ?"  Why,  yes  ? 
The  Reformers  lived  only  because  the  wars  of  near  half  a  century- 
could  not  extinguish  ,them.  No,  Mr.  Hughes ;  it  is  not  from  the 
Carrolls,  and  Gastons,  and  Careys,  and  other  patriots,  that  we  look 
for  these  things,  as  you  try  to  make  me  say,  concerning  the  wicked 
and  polluted  hands  of  the  Jesuit  priesthood,  under  their  names. 
No.  The  Catholic  laity,  such  as  these,  are  not  Roman  Catholics ! 
on  the  question  of  liberty.  The  priesthood  is  the  Church;  the 
hierarchy  of  Rome  is  the  despotic  power ;  and  they  must  change, 
or  fall  from  the  confidence  of  American  citizens.  But  if  the  priest- 
hood can  but  rally  from  the  dark  papal  states  of  Europe,  a  full 
band  of  theii'  unlettered  and  deeply  subjected  militia,  then  may 
we  see  this  land  ruled  by  a  papal  mob;  and  then  these  slumber- 
ing doctrines  will  awake  for  new  carnage  in  this  confiding  nation. 
But  we  proceed.  Mr.  Hughes,  in  the  face  of  Bellarmine's  own 
words,  says,  that  "  they"  (heretics)  "  may,  and  ought  to  be  pu- 
nished with  civil  penalties,  and  even  death,  7iot  by  the  Church, 
as  Mr.  Breckinridge  states,  in  opposition  to  Bellarmine's  own 
words,  but  by  the  civil  power."  Now,  see  the  truth.  In  this 
very  cliapter,  Bellarmine  says,  "  It  is  proved ;  [the  proposition, 
that  the  civil  power  ought  to  punish,  even  with  death,  the  in- 


232 

CORRIGIBLE     HERETICS    CAST    OFF     BY    THE    ChURCH.]       I.    By  THK 

Scriptures.  II.  It  is  proved,  from  the  opinions  and  laws  of  the 
emperors,  which  the  Church  has  always  approved."  Is  this 
an  opiMON  of  Bellarmine?  He  appeals  to  history.  III.  **  It  is 
PROVED  BY  the  LAWS  OF  THE  Church  1"  Is  this  an  opinion? 
Do  the  laws  of  the  Church  ever  violate  her  doctrines?  If 
these  laws  were  anti-Catholic,  would  "  the  Church  always  ap- 
prove them,^''  and  pass  them,  and  never  to  this  day  repeal  them  ? 
IV.  "*//  is  proved  by  the  testimony  of  the  fathers'''  Were  these 
fathers  heretics?  Their  opinions  make  part  of  the  rule  of  faith 
in  the  Roman  Church!     He  afterwards  says,  "That  heretics 

were  OFTEN  BURNED  BY  THE  ChURCH,  MAY  BE  PROVED  BY  AD- 
DUCING A  FEW  FROM  MANY  EXAMPLES  ;"  and  he  names  "  Dona- 
TisTs,  Manicheans,  AND  Albigenses,  who  wcrc  routed,  and  an- 
nihilated by  armsf  nay,  he  says,  "  an  almost  infinite  num- 
ber (of  heretics)  were  either  burned,  or  otherwise  put  to 
death"  (by  the  Church.)  But  Mr.  Hughes  ventures  to  say, 
"  every  instance,  adduced  by  Bellarmine,  of  this,  is  an  instance 
by  the  authority  of  the  state,"  (but,  he  says,  the  Church  approved 
this!  Is  it  not  then  her  doctrine?)  or  by  some  emperor;  but  in- 
asmuch as  the  civil  rulers,  who  made  and  executed  these  laws 
against  heretics,"  (but,  Mr.  Hughes!  Bellarmine  says,  "the  laws 
OF  the  Church  called  for  it!")  "  were  Catholics,  and  the  Church 
had  cast  these  heretics  out;  he  speaks  of  it  as  if  the  Church  her- 
self had  executed  the  laws."  But  Bellarmine  says,  "  The  apostles 
did  not  invoke  the  secular  arm  against  heretics,  because  there  was 
no  Christian  prince  whom  they  could  call  on  for  aid.  But  after- 
wards, in  Constantine's  time the  Church  called  in 

the  aid  of  the  secular  arm."  And  he  here  quotes  Augustin  again. 
And  more  ;  he  says,  (all  in  Mr.  Hughes's  face,  in  the  self-same 
chapter,)  "  As  the  Church  has  ecclesiasticcd  and  secular  princes, 
who  are  her  two  arms,  so  she  has  two  swords,  the  spiritual  and 
m,atericd;  and,  therefore,  when  her  right  hand  is  unable  to  con- 
vert a  heretic,  with  the  sword  of  the  spirit,  she  invokes  the  aid  of 
the  left  hand,  and  coerces  the  heretics  with  the  material  {ferreo- 
iron)  sword."  Here  he  makes  the  Church  the  head  ;  and  the 
state,  "the  left  arm,  with  the  iron  sword"  moving  at  her- will; 
and  as  soon  as  ever  the  emperors  would,  she  set  them  to  work  to 
burn  heretics !  Yet,  Mr.  Hughes  has  the  rashness,  I  use  no 
stronger  term,  to  say,  "  every  instance,  adduced  by  Bellarmine, 
is  AN  instance  of  the  authority  OF  the  state  !"  Oh !  shame, 
where  is  thy  blush !  As  well  say,  that  the  m.an  loho  kindled  the 
fire  that  burned  them,  did  it,  and  not  the  einperor ;  for  the  em- 
peror did  not  touch  the  match!  The  Church  cut  off  the  heretic; 
she  then  ordered,  or  begged,  according  to  her  potver,  the  state  to 
burn  him;  the  state  ordered  the  executioner  to  do  it!  Pray  ivho 
did  it?  And  yet  Mr.  Hughes  gravely  asks,  "  Does  he  say  there 
is  any  law  of  the  Church  requiring  heretics  to  be  put  to  death  ?" 


233 

Yes.  He  says,  "  It  is  proved  by  the  laws  of  the  Church  !'* 
What  is  proved  ?  Why,  that  when  the  Church  casts  off  incorri- 
gible heretics,  the  civil  power  should  inflict  on  such  temporal 
punishments,  even  death  itself.  He  quotes,  in  proof,  no  less  than 
four  chapters  from  the  canon  laiv,  which  I  will  spread  out  in  my 
next  speech,  if  Mr.  Hughes  dares  deny  these  proofs  again.  How- 
futile,  how  childish,  then,  his  quibbles  on  the  assertion  of  doctrine 
inform?  How  reckless,  and  how  impotent  his  foul,  vulgar 
charges  against  me,  as  the  pervertor  and  corruptor  of  this  author! 
But  I  think  we  shall  next  hear  him  say,  Bellarmine  is  not  a 
standard  author!  "  The  grapes  are  sour,"  said  the  wily  fox, 
when  he  reached  for  them  in  vain.  I  know  not  where  the  gen- 
tleman gets  the  phrase,  which  he  charges  on  me,  "  that  I  carry 
on  the  controversy  by  myself.''''  This  "  lingo^^  is  familiar  at 
home  with  him,  I  suppose.  But  truly,  if  his  defence  of  his 
Church  falters  hereafter,  as  it  has  done  of  late,  after  thirty  days 
delay ^  and  then  such  replies,  I  shall  almost  cease  to  believe  what 
others  say,  that  he  has  helps  at  hand. 

The  gentleman  cannot  forget  "the  barbed"  arguments  of  Dr. 
Miller!  Adapting  my  figure  to  my  present  associate,  I  have  only 
to  say  '■'■the  galled  jade  winces.'''' 

Next  he  assails  the  able  Dr.  Brownlee,  and  calls  him  •A.fanaiicl 
Strange  that  2^  fanatic  routed  the  banded  triumvirate  of  the  New 
York  priesthood.  Yon  remember,  Mr.  President,  that  on  the 
preliminary  evening  of  the  debate.  Dr.  Brownlee,  Dr.  Brantley 
and  his  son,  as  well  as  Mr.  Hughes  and  myself,  took  some  very 
small  part  in  the  debate.  The  terms  had  not  finally  been  agreed 
on.  Young  Brantley,  with  great  modesty,  dignity  and  eflect, 
according  to  the  rules  of  your  society,  opened  the  debate.  Dr. 
Brantley  stated  a  single  pointy  and  "proved"  Mr.  Hughes  a 
"  negative "  for  the  evening ;  Dr.  Brownlee  denied  the  assertion 
made  by  Mr.  Hughes,  as  to  forty  editions  of  the  Italian  Bible 
being  printed  before  one  Protestant  edition.  Now  Mr.  Hughes 
drags  him  and  the  other  genllemfii  in,  and  very  rudely  insults 
them.  The  truth  was,  we  had  much  difficulty  in  getting  Mr. 
Hughes  to  the  meeting;  in  keeping  him  at  it,  (for  his  canonical 
hours  came  on  early  that  night) ;  or  in  drawing  him  out  in  it. — 
Hence  it  was  an  irregular  meeting;  though  the  gentleman  gave 
himself  a  good  share  of  glory,  and  us  a  terrible  awful  defeat,  in 
his  communication  to  the  "  Catholic  Diary.'"'  I  am  thus  minute, 
that  those  who  may  read  this  Discussion  (having  not  witnessed 
the  debate)  may  know  the  history  of  that  scene. 

And  now,  as  to  the  forty  Italian  editions  of  the  Bible.  I  say 
first,  I  demand  better  proof  than  Mr.  Hughes's  word.  Let  us 
have  it  in  full.  Second,  I  ask  Mr.  Hughes  if  he  will  assert  that 
there  was  no  restriction  on  the  reading  of  the  Bible  before  the 
Council  of  Trent?  Third,  Will  he  say  that  these  editions  of  Ita- 
lian Bibles  circulated  yVee/y,  and  were  by  their  cost,  &c.,  in  the 

30 


234 

reach  of  the  mass  of  the  people?  Fourth,  How  large  were  the 
editions  ?  But  allowing  h\s  forty  editions,  let  us  see  his  reasoning. 
Forty  editions  of  Italian  Bibles  luere  printed  by  Catholics,  before 
the  first  Bible  ivas  printed  by  Protestants :  therefore  the  Scrip- 
tures ivere  not,  and  are  not  forbidden  to  the  laity  J  Surely  there 
is  gveai  prof undity  here.  It  seems  to  be  thought  by  Mr.  Hughes 
of  no  consequence  to  the  argument  to  know,  whether  there  was 
not  a  restriction  on  the  use  of  these  books.  But  the  facts  shall 
speak  by  the  side  of  his  logic.  First  fact.  In  1515,  about 
half  a  century  after  the  first  use  of  types,  when  printing  began 
to  frighten  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  Council  of  Lateran  under 
Leo  X.  muzzled  the  press,  wlien,  by  Mr.  Hughes's  own  showing, 
only  fifteen  of  his  forty  editions  had  appeared  ;  and  when  know- 
ledge had  begun  to  spread,  and  Luther  was  on  the  point  of  ap- 
pearing as  a  Reformer,  the  council  forbid  any  book  to  be 
printed  any  ivhcre,  under  heavy  penalties,  unless  exam.ined  and 
approved,  by  the  Pope'^s  vicar,  or  some  Inquisitor.  Second  fact. 
The  first  rule  of  the  Index  of  prohibited  books  prepared  hy  order  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  informs  us  that  books  were  condemned 
before  the  year  1515,  by  Popes  and  Councils.  Third  fact. 
The  Index  prepared  by  authority  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which 
J  exhibited  to  the  saciety  during  the  debate,  and  which  Mr. 
Hughes  has  examined  at  his  own  house,  in  so  many  words  for- 
bids the  use  (not  of  the  Protestant  but)  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Bible,  in  every  vulgar  tongue  (1).  Biblia  vulgari  quocunque 
Idiomate  conscripta!  Pray,  of  what  use  then,  were,  the  for t^ 
editions  in  the  Italian  language,  except  to  the  priesthood? 
Fourth  fact.  The  fourth  rule  of  the  Index  forbids  the  Bible 
(the  Catholic  Bible)  translated  into  the  vulgar  tongue  to  be 
indiscriminately  used,  because  it  was  manifest  from  experience 
[these  forty  editions  had  begun  to  do  mischief  it  seems !]  that 
such  use  would  cause  more  evil  than  good;  and  therefore  no 
man  without  a  ivritten  permission  from  a  bishop  or  inquisitor, 
should  read  or  possess  a  copi/  of  the  Bible,  and  offenders  were 
punished — the  possessors  and  readers — by  refusing  absolution  to 
them,  till  they  gave  up  the  book :  and  the  venders  by  fines  and 
forfeitures,  and  other  penalties.  These  rules  I  produced  at  large 
on  the  first  night  of  the  debate.  Now  I  ask  of  what  use  were 
these  Bibles,  these  "forty  editions,"  under  such  restrictions? 
And  is  it  honest,  with  these  four  facts  in  his  house,  in  his  hand, 
in  his  eye,  to  make  so  great  a  flourish  with  his  forty  Italian  edi- 
tions? It  were  just  as  fair,  and  as  fitting,  to  give  us  the  history  of 
^^  the  forty  thieves!''''  Fifth  fact.  Even  this  license  has  since 
been  recalled.  I  have  before  me,  and  will  give,  from  the  index, 
the  order  of  Pope  Clement  VIII.  recalling  the  licence-giving 
power  mentioned   above  ;    and  extending  the  prohibition  tcy 

(1)  In  page  30. 


235 

the    READING    or    KEEPING    OF    THE    BiBLE,    OR    ANY    PART,    EVEN    A 
-OOMPEND    OR    SUMMARY     OF    IT,    IN     ANY     IDIOM.         If    Mr.    HughcS 

questions  it,  I  will  give  the  passage  in  the  original. 

Now  M'here  are  your  forty  Italian  editions?  They  are  buried 
in  your  convents — used  as  pillows  under  the  heads  of  lazy  monks, 
hid  from  the  sight  of  men — forbidden  to  God's  creatures,  as  hurtful 
to  the  hierarchy  of  that  "  man  of  sin"  who  would  take  God's  place, 
and  full  well  knows  that  darkness  is  his  Jit  dwelling-place,  and 
his  only  defence  I 

In  truth — the  gentleman  owns  that  there  was  a  ^^ partial  re- 
striction^' afterwards!  I  ask  why?  Who  dare  do  it?  Is  not  this 
against  human  liberty?  He  says  it  was  "local,"  "temporary.'* 
I  pronounce  it  utterly,  deliberately  false;  and  defy  the  author  of 
so  outrageous  a  perversion  of  facts  to  show  me,  in  all  the  above 
citations,  one  proof  that  these  restrictions  were  not  ^^ prohibitory^''* 
*'  universal,  "  and  "  perpetual."  Let  him  but  give  me  one  rebut- 
ting fact  or  word.  His  knowledge  is  too  large  to  acquit  his 
character.     It  is  the  height  of  reckless  audacity  and  folly. 

And  now  a  word  of  the  bull  of  Innocent  VIIL  Not  for  his 
impertinence,  will  I  give  my  authority — but  for  the  information  of 
the  country — for  the  confusion  of  the  man,  who  knows,  while  he 
denies  it,  that  there  is  such  a  bull.  He  will  find  it  spread  out  at 
large  in  "  Free  Thoughts  on  Popery,"  by  Bruce,  of  Great  Britain, 
He  will  find  an  abstract  of  it  in  Jones's  History  of  the  Christian 
Church,  Vol.  II.  Chap.  6.  He  will  find  it  in  Morland's  Churches 
of  Piedmont,  pp.  188-198;  and  in  Alix's  History  of  that  perse- 
cuted people  against  whom  the  "  infernal  machine"  was  levelled. 
The  original,  Mr.  H.  once  called  for.  I  promised  to  send  for  it 
to  the  Cambridge  library,  England.  I  have  done  so.  It  may  yet 
make  him  blush.  He  evidendy  fears  it ;  for  now,  he  says,  if  \i 
comes,  it  may  be  a  forgery.  He  thus  makes  a  buU,  in  denying 
one.  In  the  continuation  of  Baronius's  Annals,  as  proved  in  the 
late  Controversy,  the  fact,  that  such  a  bull  M^as  given,  is  distinctly 
stated.  I  now  ask,  does  Mr.  H.  deny  that  Albert  de  Capetaines 
was  commissioned  by  the  Pope  to  carry  on  the  crusade,  as  stated 
in  the  bull  ?  By  what  authority  did  he  execute  his  commission? 
Let  us  have  honest  answers  to  these  two  inquiries.  Let  the 
reader  also  observe,  that  the  bull  is  so  horrible  that  the  gentleman 
finds  his  only  safety  in  denying  its  authenticity.  To  its  contents 
he  will  never  venture  a  reply. 

And  you  see  all  he  says,  or  can  say,  of  the  Pope's  treatment  of 
the  Republic  of  Venice!  Venice  was  a  Bepublic ;  iheiefore 
Catholics  are  not  opposed  to  liberty !  profound  ratiocination  !  But 
what  did  the  Jesuits — the  Pope's  soldiery,  do  ?  Why,  impelled 
by  the  doctrine,  that  the  Pope  is  head  of  the  church,  and  the 
church  over  the  state,  they  left  their  country  to  join  the  Pope, 
who  was  in  arms  against  it!  And  so  would  it  be  with  Jesuits  in 
America,  in  the  same  circumstances.     Venice,  like  Poland,  and 


236 

Swilzerlaiul  and  France,  had  some  noble  spirits — some  deep  laid 
principles  of  liberty,  not  in  consequence'-— hut  in  spite  of  popeiy. 
Popery  has  well  nigh  ruined  them  all.  But,  in  so  far  as  they 
were  free,  did  they  find  the  Pope  trying  to  oppress  them.  Spain 
had  good  Catholics — hence  Spain  was  enslaved  :  so  Portugal.  In 
each,  as  liberty  rises,  popery  sinks.  The  liberal  party  in  both 
countries  has  the  priesthood  against  them.  'J'he  thousand  monas- 
teries and  nunneries,  lately  annihilated  in  Spain  and  Portugal, 
show  what  the  lovers  of  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  of  a  more 
free  constitution,  think  of  popery,  and  its  anti-liberal  fruits.  The 
Pope's  bull  against  the  government  of  Portugal,  and  his  sympathy 
with  his  dear  son,  Don  Carlos,  show  how  he  feels  towards  liberal 
institutions,  and  the  destruction  of  church-power  and  priestly 
domination.  So  it  was  in  Venice ;  ask  Father  Paul — ask  Dupin 
— ask  De  Thou,  (Thuanus  ;)  you  have  denounced  them  as  Fro- 
testants.  They  were  Catholics,  but  in  Venice  and  France 
stood  up  for  liberty.  1  say  not,  that  all  Catholics  are  in  doctrine  or 
in  spirit,  enemies  to  liberty.  Far  from  it.  All  men  love  it.  But 
the  priesthood  ride  on  the  necks  of  men.  They  keep  them  de- 
based, ignorant,  oppressed,  by  doctrines  and  discipline  opposed 
to  all  liberty.  The  most  enlightened  rise  np  to  resist;  and  at  last 
the  hierarchy  will  fall ;  and  all  people  will  be  free.  Then  there 
will  remain  the  Catholicism  of  truth,  which  now  lies  neutralized 
under  the  weight  of  despotism,  as  the  Alps  under  eternal  snows. 
But  the  system  is  constructed  to  darken,  enslave,  corrupt,  and 
govern  the  world.  Not  all  the  doctrines ;  not  all  the  discipline  $ 
but  the  system  is  tyrannic.  It  refuses  to  reform — it  must  then 
expire.     God  speed  the  day  ! 

In  the  case  of  Devoti,  the  gentleman  feels  himself  to  be  on 
perilous  ground.  I  have  forced  him  to  admit  that  Devoti,  (a 
writer  approved  at  Rome  late  in  the  eighteenth  century,)  says, 
that  the  Church  o(  JRome  did  directly  inflict  bodily  punishments, 
and  fine  and  banish  men.  This  is  enough.  Does  Mr.  Hughes 
deny  this  to  have  been  the  fact?  Did  the  Church  of  Rome  do  it, 
or  not?  Let  him  reply.  I  defy  him  to  deny  it.  You  will  see 
he  dare  not.  She  did.  Then  there  was  a  time  when  the  Church 
of  Rome  held  no  doctrine  which  forbid  this  tyranny.  But,  she 
says,  she  changes  not.  Then  she  is  still  the  same  ;  and  can, 
without  any  violation  of  her  doctrines,  do  it  still.  If,  then,  she 
gets  the  power  in  America,  is  she  to  be  trusted?  Are  not  her  doc- 
trines as  ready  for  it  as  ever?  Now,  the  American  Protestant 
churches  say,  that  it  is  anti-Christian,  anti-liberal  for  them  to  do 
it.  If  the  gentleman  can  show  any  such  declaration  of  his  church, 
let  him  do  it.  If  not,  that  settles  the  question.  But,  he  says, 
Devoti  only  claimed  the  church's  right  to  do  these  thiiigs  from, 
the  constitutions  of  emperors.  Suppose  it  to  be  so.  If  the 
American  Constitution  should  give  to  the  Catholic  Church  the 
power  to  fine,  imprison,  banish,  castigate  men,  is  there  any  thing 


237 

in  her  doctrines  which  forbids  it?  No.  If  there  be,  let  it  be 
stated,  chapter  and  verse.  But  the  American  Protestant  Churches 
— the  Presbyterian  Church,  for  example,  in  her  standards,  de- 
clares, that  it  is  not  right,  not  Christian,  not  competent  to  her,  or 
any  church  of  Christ,  to  have,  or  to  hold,  or  to  exercise,  such 
power.  Here  is  the  grand  difference.  But  the  author  Devoti 
goes  farther,  and  distinctly  says,  (in  a  passage  quoted  at  large  by 
me  in  my  first  speech,  second  night,  (1)  to  which  I  refer  the  reader,) 

"  Labarde endeavours   to   undermine   and  take  away 

THE  power  given  BY  Christ  TO  THE  CHURCH,  7iot  Only  of  govern- 
ment by  councils,  and  persuasion,  but  also  of  decreeing  by  laws, 
and  of  compulsion,  and  of  coercing  with  punishment,  those  who 
are  worthy  of  it,  and  who  subjects  the  ecclesiastical  ministry 

IN  SUCH  A  WAY  TO  THE  SECULAR  POWER,  AS  TO  INSIST  THAT  TO  IT 
.  BELONGS  THE  COGNIZANCE  AND  JURISDICTION  OF  ALL  EXTERNAL  AND 
SENSIBLE  GOVERNMENT." 

Again  ;  §  VIII.  "  And  since  the  power  of  the  church  is  two- 
fold, the  one  wholly  spiritual,  given  separately  (i.  e.,  to  her  alone) 
by  Christ,  which  is  exercised  both  in  the  inner  and  outer  court ; 
the  other,  which  she  has  in  common  with  every  perfect  and  dis- 
tinct commonwealth,  and  which  is  called  temporal,  it  follows  that 
there  are  two  kinds  of  punishments  ordained  by  her :  the  one  kind 
is  spiritual,  which  is  to  afflict  the  soul ;  the  other  temporal,  which 
is  to  castigate  the  body :  she  exercises  the  right  to  inflict  spiritual 
punishment  on  all  who,  by  baptism,  are  admitted  among  the  chil- 
dren of  the  church,  and  who  sin  against  religion.     The  church 

HAS  ALSO  SET  UP  TEMPORAL  PUNISHMENTS  FOR  ALL  ;  BUT  THE  LAITY 
AND     CLERGY,     IN     AN     UNEQUAL     DEGREE."         In     §  X.,     he     SayS, 

"  So  long  as  she  (the  church)  has  punishments  equal  to  their  (the 
clergy's)  offence,  she  inflicts  them  by  that  right  which  every  re- 
public has  over  its  citizens,  and  punishes  a  guilty  clergyman 
with  lashes,  fines,  imprisonment,  and  other  inflictions,  with  this 
end,  that  the  offenders  may  be  reformed,  and  others  may,  by  the 
example  of  their  punishment,  be  induced  to  abstain  from  crime." 
It  is  in  illustrating  this  section,  (as  well  as  in  Book  III.  tit.  1. 
sec.  21.)  that  he  gives  the  account  of  the  prisons  of  the  church,  in 
monasteries,  for  example.     [Are  our  nunneries  thus  furnished  ?3 
Now,  we  ask,  is  not  here  a  right  claimed  to  exercise  temporal 
power?     Whence  is  it  derived?     Not  from  the  state?  No.     For 
he  says  eaeh  power,  civil  and  religious,  has  its  distinct  preroga- 
tive !    It  is  "  eojure,''  by  that  right  which  every  republic  exercises 
over  its  citizens.'^     This  Dens  contends  for,  over  all  baptized  per- 
sons, as  I  have  already  showed — the  gentleman  not  disputing  his 
testimony.     Bellarmine,  also,  as  I  have  just  shown,  claims  this 
power,  not  as  the  gift  of  the  state,  but  possessed  before  the  state 
permitted  the  church  to  exercise  it ;  and  says,  it  was  exercised  as 
soon  as  it  was  in  the  power  of  the  church  to  do  so.     "When  I 

(1)  Page  139. 


238 

said,  then,  in  my  last  speech,  "  this  writer  claims  for  the  church 
the  right  to  inflict  temporal  and  bodily  punishments,*^  I  said 
just  the  truth;  and  my  promise  to  expose  Mr.  H.  is  so  far  ful- 
filled, that  I  am  well  assured  his  friends  will  feel  it,  if  he  does  not. 
But  to  end  the  dispute.  Devoti  says,  §  V.,  '*  Peace  having 
been  given  to  Christians,  [in  Constantine's  reign,  and  afterwards,] 
the  church  passed  judgment  on  crimes,  not  only  by  her  own 
RIGHT,  (suo  jure,)  but  by  the  laws  of  the  emperors.''  Here, 
plainly,  she  claimed  the  right  before  the  emperors  conceded  and 
confirmed  it.  But  what  were  these  crimes  and  judgments? 
"  And  truly  these  judgments  were  not  only  about  crimes  against 
religion,  but  they  also  comprehended  all  causes  in  which  the 
clergy  were  convicted,  of  any  crime  against  the  republic"  (or 
state.)  He  proceeds  through  the  whole  title,  or  chapter,  to  dis- 
tinguish, or  more  properly  to  confound,  the  two  republics,  as  he 
calls  them,  namely,  the  church  and  the  state ;  and  comes  to  the 
result,  that  the  essential  nature  of  the  church's  constitution  as  a 
republic,  gives  her  temporal  power  over  all,  in  certain  respects, 
but  especially  over  the  clergy  ;  whom  she  fines,  whips,  imprisons, 
banishes ;  and,  if  all  will  not  do,  then  hands  them  over  to  the  last 
vengeance  of  the  civil  arm^  by  excoTnmunication  ;  which  is  higher 
punishment  than  all  others ;  and  which  infers  all  the  rest,  if  the 
state  does  its  duty  to  heretics. 

As  to  the  Rhemish  Testament,  I  really  think  that  all  honest 
men  will  say  Mr.  H.  has  made  a  distinction  without  a  difference 
in  his  comments  on  one  of  my  citations  from  it.     I  gave  a  page  of 
extracts.     It  seems  in  one  of  them  I  make  them  say,  *'  the  trans- 
lators of  the  English  (Protestant)  Bible,  ought  to  be  abhorred  to 
the  depths  of  hell.'"'     They  say,  "  but  if  the  good  reader  knew  for 
what  point  of  doctrine  they  (the  Protestant  translators)  have  thus 
framed  their  translation,  they  would  abhor  them  to  the  depths  of 
hell."     In  both  cases,  they  are  to  be  abhorred  to  the  depths  of 
fiell — only,  gentle  reader,  it  is  the  great  difference,  that  a  right 
judgment  would  so  abhor  them;  and  not  that  they  ought  to  be  so 
abhorred!     How  hard  pressed  is  a  man,  a  cause,  that  thus  sinks j 
catching  at   straws.     But   I    stand   corrected.     Yet   pray,   Mr. 
Hughes,  why  pass  over  all  the  other  citatio7is  in  silence?     One 
of  them  says,  "  the  zeal  of  Catholic  men  ought  to  be  so  great  to- 
wards all  heretics,  and  their  doctrines,  that  they  should  give 
them  the  anathema,  though  they  are  never  so  dear  to  them ;  so  as 
not  even  Xo  spare  their  own  parents.''     Am  /  right  in  this  cita- 
tion?    If  so,  are  they  in  doctrine?     "The  blood  of  heretics,  is 
not  the  blood  of  saints,  no  more  than  the  blood  of  thieves,  man- 
killers,  and  other  malefactors  ;  for  the  shedding  of  which  bloody 
by  order  of  justice,  no  commonwealth  shall  answer."     Is  it  faith- 
ful?   Is  it  true  Catholic  doctrine?    They  seem  to  say  so.     These 
are  their  comments,  as  good  Catholics,  on  Gals.  i.  8.  and  Revs, 
xvii.  6. ;  and  are  specimens  of  those  not  noticed  by  Mr.  Hughes. 


239 

The  charge  against  the  American  Bible  Society  bears  malice 
and  falsehood  on  its  front.  But  the  Pope  has  begun  to  denounce 
these  noble  institutions;  well  may  the  vassal  follow  his  *^  most 
holy  lord.^'' 

Under  what  he  calls  "  Ithly,''^  he  tries  to  cover  a  former  admis- 
sion, which  was,  "  that  the  majority  had  a  right,  as  in  Italy,  or 
Spain,  to  establish  the  Catholic  religion  by  law,  if,  in  doing  so, 
they  violate  no  right  of  the  minority."  Now,  I  ask,  if  this  does 
not  imply  that  such  a  thing  m,ay  be  done  without  violating  such 
rights?  But  to  test  his  principle,  I  still  farther  ask,  is  it  possi- 
ble ever  to  establish  ayiy  religion  by  law,  and  yet  not  violate  the 
rights  of  the  minority?  Or  to  the  cases  in  hand.  Was  not  that 
done  in  Spain,  and  in  Italy,  by  establishing  the  Catholic  religion 
by  law  ? 

On  the  third  page,  he  admits  that  Catholics  have  persecuted. 
I  ask,  has  one  butt  or  decree  of  council,  by  which  they  justified 
their  persecution,  ever  been  repealed?  Please  show  me  one. 
Whereas,  American  Protestants  have  renounced  and  changed 
those  articles  which  their  fathers  derived  from  Rome,  and  once 
pled  in  justification  of  persecution.  For  example,  the  citation 
from  "  Fisher's  Catechism"  is  not  held  by  Presbyterians  in 
America. 

He  says,  ^^  was  not  the  Jewish  religion  established  by  law? 
And  is  not  that  in  the  Bible  ?"  This  is  a  strong  squinting  at  de- 
fending establishments.  But,  Mr.  Hughes,  that  was  a  theocracy, 
and  not  an  example;  or  to  be  a  plea  for  the  Roman  hierarchy, 
though  I  know  your  church  so  thinks,  and  your  government  is  so 
modelled. 

His  pertness  about  Luther  answers  itself:  it  is  too  puerile  to  be 
worthy  of  notice. 

Having  met  the  statements,  and  exposed  the  fallacious  and 
evasive  reasonings  of  the  gentleman,  I  now  return  to  the  line  of 
my  argument.  In  my  last  address  I  showed  conclusively,  both 
by  the  declarations  and  the  acts  of  the  Pope,  that  he  claimed,  by 
divine  right,  power  over  both  swords,  that  is,  to  be  the  head  of 
the  state,  as  well  as  of  the  church.  The  honest  and  high  toned 
papal  writers  make  no  qualifications  on  this  subject.  Of  these 
there  is  a  great  crowd.  Let  us  take  an  example.  Suarez  : — "  A 
king  legitimately  deposed  is  no  longer  legally  a  king;  and,  if 
after  such  deposition,  he  continues  obstinate,  and  retains  the 
kingdom  by  force,  he  then  deserves  the  title  of  tyrant.  After  the 
sentence  is  pronounced  (by  the  Pope)  he  is  entirely  deprived  of 
his  dominions,  so  that  he  can  no  longer  justly  retain  possession 
of  them.  Hence  he  may  be  treated  in  all  respects  as  a  tyrant; 
and  consequently  it  is  lawful  for  every  individual  to  kill  him. 
James,  king  of  England,  in  order  to  turn  Bellarmine  into  ridicule, 
observes,  this  is  a  new  and  admirable  rendering  of  the  words  of 
Jesus,   *  feed  my  sheep,   which  makes  them  signify  destroy. 


240 

proscribe^  and  depose,  Christian  princes  and  kings.''  But  Bel- 
larmine  and  all  of  us,  (for  in  this  cause  we  are  all  as  one) 
do  not  allege  these  words  to  prove  the  direct  primacy  of  the  Pope 
in  temporal  affairs.  The  king  of  England  should  not  therefore 
assert  that  we  explain  these  words  as  signifying  destroy,  &c., 
which  no  Catholic  ever  did ;  but,  if  he  will  attend  to  our  sincere 
testimony,  we  maintain,  that  among  other  things  contained  in 
these  words,  and  in  the  extent  of  power  which  they  ascribe,  this 
is  comprised — destroy,  proscribe,  depose  heretical  kings  who 

WILL  not  amend  their  WAYS,  AND  WHO  ARE  DANGEROUS  TO  THEIR 
SUBJECTS  IN  MATTERS  PERTAINING  TO  THE  CaTHOLIC  FAITH. "(I) 

This  is  comparatively  a  modern  author;  and  he  tells  us  what 
ALL  hold  in  the  Catholic  Church,  Mr.  Hughes  excepted. 

Cornelius  a  Lapide  is  still  more  bold.  He  says : — "  The  sacer- 
dotal kingdom  of  the  church  appears  first  in  the  bishops  and  the 
episcopate  ;  but  it  is  above  all  to  be  found  in  the  Pontiff,  and  the 
poniijicate,  whose  power,  great  and  most  ample,  extends  to  all 
parts  of  the  universe — a  power  by  which  he  commands  kings, 
(who  therefore  prostrate  themselves  before  him  as  suppliants, 
casting  their  crowns  and  sceptres  at  his  feet^  by  which,  ivhen 
rebels  to  the  church,  he  deprives  them,  as  he  has  OFTEN  DONE, 
OF  THEIR  KINGD0MS."(2) 

Let  it  be  observed  too  that  these  are  men  of  what  they  would 
call  moderate  views,  only  contending  for  an  indirect  temporal 
power.  The  sixth  chapter  of  Bellarmine,  fifth  book,  on  the  Pope, 
has  this  for  its  heading: — "  Papam  habere  summam  temporalem 
potestatem  indirecte" — the  Pope  possesses  supreme  temporal 
power  indirectly .  By  indirectly  we  see  what  he  means,  in  the 
following  passages  from  the  seventh  chapter.  "  It  is  not  laivful 
for  Christians  to  tolerate  an  infidel  or  heretical  king,  provided 
he  endeavours  to  seduce  his  subjects  to  his  heresy  or  infidelity. 
But  to  judge  ivhether  or  not  he  does  seduce  them  to  heresy,  per- 
tains to  the  Pope,  to  whom  is  committed  the  care  of  religion: 
therefore,  the  Pope  is  to  j^idge  whether  or  not  a  king  is  to  be 
deposed.'"' 

The  same  writer,  in  the  eighth  chapter,  adduces  examples  in 
proof  of  the  fact  that  popes  have  exercised  this  right  of  deposi- 
tion; and  from  the  fact,  he  proves  the  right.  He  gives  no  less 
than  twelve  examples!  His  first  examples  are  from  the  Old 
Testament;  such  as  Uzziah,  2  Chrons.  chap.  26,  and  Athaliah, 
2  Chrons.  chap.  23;  where  he  distinctly  implies  a  theocracy,  as 
transmitted  to  the  Catholic  Church,  with  authority  to  do  by  the 
Pope  what  the  ancient  high  priests  did.  He  then  enumerates  the 
cases  of  Gregory  I.;  Gregory  H. ;  Zachariah ;  Leo  HL,  &c.  <fec., 
who  respectively  exercised  the  deposing  power ;  and  one  of  whom, 

(1)  Defensio  Fidei,  Cath.,  &c.,  lib.  6. 

(2)  Com.  in  Acta.  Apos.,  cap.  2. 


241 

Leo  111.,  '^translated  the  empire  from  the  Greeks  to  the  Ger- 
mans, because  the  Greeks  icere  not  able  to  help  the  ivestern 
church  in  her  trials.'"  He  also  quotes  divers  parts  of  the  canon- 
law  ill  support  of  his  reasoning;  and  to  every  Catholic  his  argu- 
ments are  unanswerable:  for  he  brings  authorities  which  they 
dare  not  refuse  or  discredit.  This  is  an  honest  Roman  1  Oh 
that  they  were  all  honest;  if  they  will  be  Romans!  And  this 
is  the  Catholic  doctrine,  Baronius,  Binius,  Caranza,  Driedo, 
Suaez,  Perron,  Pighius,  Cajetan,  Sylvester,  Ilortiensis,  Panor- 
mitan,  yea,  a  crowd  of  such  writers  of  the  first  authority:  many 
quoted  by  Bellarmine  sustain  him  in  the  assertion  that  this  is  the 
principle  of  popery.  The  French  parliament  cite  no  less  than 
SIXTY-EIGHT  papal  writers,  who  were  advocates  of  this  terrific 
doctrine. 

But   we   have    the   specific    claims  of    popes  on   the   same 

SUBJECT. 

In  the  Decretals  (!•)  it  is  thus  written,  (by  Pope  Gelasius  to  the 
Emperor  Anastasius)  "  O,  august  emperor,  there  are  two  by  whom 
the  world  is  chiefly  ruled — the  sacred  authority  of  the  Popes  and 
the  kingly  power.'  In  the  which  tiiat  of  the  priests  preponde- 
rates, inasmuch  as  in  the  divine  examination,  they  will  have  to 
answer  for  the  kings  of  men." 

"  Be  well  aware,  therefore,  that  in  these  matters  you  depend 
upon  their  judgment;  and  they  cannot  be  subservient  to  your 
will."  And  at  the  close,  he  quotes  a  passage  from  Ambrose,  in 
proof  of  the  subjection  of  kings  to  the  priesthood:  '■'•for  as  much 
as  you  see  that  the  necks  of  kings  and  princes  are  put  under  the 
knees  of  priests ;  and  that  when  they  have  kissed  their  right 
hands,  they  believe  themselves  to  be  partakers  of  their  prayers." 

Again  ;(2)  the  heading  of  the  title  or  chapter  is  "  Omnes  Christi 
lideles  de  necessitate  salutis,  subsunt  Romano  Pontifici,  qui 
utrumque  gladium  habet,  et  omnes  judicat,  a  nomine  judicatur"— 
*'  It  is  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  all  the  faithful  in  Christ,  that 
they  be  subject  to  the  Pope  of  Rome;  who  has  the  power  of  both 
swords,  and  who  judges  all,  but  is  judged  by  none.^^     Here  is, 

1.  Damnation   to  all   out  of  the  visible   communion  of  Rome; 

2.  A  claim  to  all  temporal  and  spiritual  power;  3.  A  superiority  to 
all  human  tribunals.  This  is  stated  at  large  in  the  extracts 
which  are  cited  by  the  canonist,  in  proof  of  the  text  quoted  above. 
Thus  we  are  told  that  "  of  the  tivo  swords,  one  must  be  subject 
to  the  other;  and  that  the  temporcd  poicer  must  be  sidject  to  the 
spiritual ;^^  and  to  leave  no  doubt  of  the  infamous  bigotry  and 
uncharitableness  of  the  system  of  popery,  closes  with  this  awful 
declaration,  as  a  defined  tenet  of  t]ie  Church  of  Rome,  viz. 
*'  Porro  subesse  Romano  Pontifici  omni  humana?  creature,  decla- 

(1)  First  Part,  Diet.  9G,  chap.  10. 

(2)  Extravag.  Coinm.,  book  i.,  tit.  8. 

31 


242 

riinus,  dic-imu.s,  (Icfinimus  ct  pronuntiamus,  omnino  esse  de  iiccos- 
sitate  sahni.sr^ — ^'Moreover  ive  declare,  affinn,  define  and  pro- 
nounce (is  not  this  a  doctrine  delivered  ex  cathedra?)  tlutt  it  is 
altogether  necessary  to  salcaiion  for  every  human  creature  to  be 
subject  to  the  Pope  of  Borne y 

The  Pope  of  Rome  professes  to  be  the  vicegerent  of  God  on 
earth — to  dispose  of  the  church  and  the  state  at  his  will.  Hence 
the  Pope  gave  a  grant  of  America  to  Spain,  (which  has  never  yet 
been  revolved)  even  befoie  America  was  discovered.  The  Pope, 
Pius  v.,  in  his  bull  against  Queen  Elizabeth,  fecites  his  preroga- 
tive in  no  measured  terms.  In  that  bull  he  deprives  her  of  her  king- 
dom, and  releases  her  subjects  from  their  allegiance  to  her.  "  He 
who  reigns  on  high,  to  whom  is  given  all  power  in  heaven  and 
on  earth,  hath  committed  the  one  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church,  out  of  which  there  is  no  salvation^  to  one  alone,  on 
earth,  namely,  to  Peter,  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  to  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  successor  of  Peter,  to  be  governed  with  the  fullness  of 
power.  T'his  one  man  hath  he  appointed  prince  over  all  na- 
tions, AND  ALL  KINGDOMS,  tliut  lic  may  pluck  up,  destroy,  scatter, 
ruin,  plant,  build.^^  To  this  latter  trust  he  has  been  eminently 
faithful !  Her6  is  godship  on  earth,  in  church  and  state.  Where 
any  liberty  can  lurk,  in  these  pretensions,  or  under  this  universal 
theocracy,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive. 

Again;  the  bull  of  Sixtus  V.  against  Henry,  king  of  Navarre, 
and  the  prince  of  Conde,  thus  runs : — "The  authority  given  to 
St.  Peter  and  his  successors,  by  the  immense  power  of  the 
eternal  King,  excels  all  the  powers  of  earthly  kings  and  princes. 
It  passes  uncontrollable  sentence  upon  all,  and  if  it  find  any  of 
them  resisting  God's  ordinance,  it  takes  a  more  severe  vengeance 
of  them,  and,  casting  down  the  most  powerful  of  them  from  their 
thrones,  tumbles  them  down  into  the  lowest  parts  of  the  earth,  as 
the  ministers  of  the  proud  Lucifer." 

Among  the  twenty-seven  celebrated  Sentences,  or  Dictates,  of 
Pope  Gregory  VII.  are  such  as  these,  viz. 

8th.  That  the  Pope  alone  can  use  imperial  ensigns. 

9th.  That  all  princes  must  kiss  the  feet  of  the  Pope  only. 

12th.  That  it  is  lawful  for  him  to  depose  emperors. 

17th.  That  no  chapter  or  book  may  be  accounted  canonical 
without  his  authority. 

18th.  That  his  sentence  may  be  retracted  by  none;  and  he 
alone  may  retract  all  men's. 

19th.  That  he  himself  ought  to  be  judged  by  no  man. 

27th.  That  he  may  absolve  tlie  subjects  of  unjust  men  from 
fidelity  (to  their  princes). 

These  Dictates  are  papal  definitions  of  papal  power.  They 
have  been  preserved  by  the  papal  writers ;  believed  and  observed 
by  the  priesthood;  and  never  revoked,  rescinded,  or  condemned 
by  any  council,  or  any  pope.     Of  this  Cardinal  Baronius  is  a 


243 


good  witness  ,  \vho  asserts,  concerning  lliese  Dtcfales — S^ntenlias 
eas  hactenus  in  Ecclesia  Calholica,  usu  receplas  fuisse,  quibus 
reprinietur  audacia  schismaticorum  principum  hoc  tempore  in 
Rornanam  fJcclesiam  insi'irgenlium.  T'hat  these  senlences  had 
heretofore  (to  the  eleventh  century)  been  received  info  iise  in  the 
Catholic  Church;  by  them  the  audacity  of  schismatic  princes^ 
who  had  during  that  time  arisen  in  the  Roman  Church,  had 
been  restrained. 

It  were  a  curious  and  instructive  piece  of  history  to  compile 
into  one  table,  after  the  example  of  liellarmine,  not  the  dozen, 
but  the  tivo  hundred  examples,  in  which  popes  have  actually 
carried  their  principles  into  effect  in  the  excommunication,  or 
deposition,  or  both,  as  the  case  might  be,  of  offensive  kings  and 
emperors. 

We  give  below  an  imperfect  tabular  view,  promising  to  add, 
alter,  or  diminish,  at  the  suo-gestion  of  Mr.  Hughes,  on  good  evi- 
dence of  error.  We  have  no  doubt  his  superior  knowledge  of 
tJiis  topic  in  history  will  enable  him  greatly  to  enlarge  the  table. 


Poi'ES. 

Gregory  11. 
Gregory  III. 
Pascal  I. 
John  VIII.     - 
Gregory  ^'. 
Adrian  II. 

Gregory  VII. 
Urban  II.       - 

Pascal  II. 

Calixtus  II. 
Gelasius  II. 
Adrian  IV.     - 

Alexander  III. 
Celestine  III. 


Innocent  III, 


PnixcES  eu-C'jmmnnicated,  or  deponed,  or  b/^th. 

Leo  III.,") 

Leo  III.,  I  Emperors. 

Leo  v.,    J 

Lewis,  King  of  Germany. 

liobert.  King  of  France. 

Lothario,  >  ^^ 

C  Henry  IV.,  ^E'-'P""'-^- 

\  Balislaus,  King  of  Poland. 

S  Henry  IV.,  Emperor. 
Philip  I.,  King  of  France, 
<  Henry  IV.,  ^ 

j  Henry  v.,     t   Emperors. 
Henry  V.,  j  * 

Henry  V.,        J 

William,  King  of  Sicily. 
C  Frederic  I.,  Emperor. 
I  Henry  H.,  King  of  England. 
C  Henry  VI.,  Emperor. 
I  Alphonso,  King  of  Galicia. 

Philip  and  Otho,  Emperors. 

John,  King  of  England. 

Philip  II.,  of  France. 

Ladislans,  King  of  Poland. 

Louis  VII.  &L  Louis  VIIL,  of  France. 


This  was  the  monster  who  said — '*  It  has  pleased  God  so  to 
order  the  affairs  of  the  world,  that  those  provinces  which  had 
anciently  been  subject  to  the  Roman  Church  in  spirituals,  were 


244 

now  become  subject  to  it  in  temporals.'''  And  again ;  "  Jesus 
Christ,  the  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords,  and  Priest  accord- 
ing to  the  order  of  Melchizedeck,  hath  so  united  the  royal  and 
priestly  power,  in  his  chnrch,  tliat  the  kingdom  is  but  a  royal 
priesthood,  and  the  priesthood  the  royal  power." 

He  said,  "  the  church,  my  spouse,  is  not  married  to  me  with- 
out bringing  me  something.  She  hath  given  me  a  dowry  of  price 
beyond  all  price,  the  pleniiiide  of  spiritual  things^  and  the  full 
extent  (latitudinem  temporalium)  of  temporal  things.  She  hath 
given  me  the  mitre,  in  token  of  things  spiritual;  the  crown,  in 
token  of  things  temporal:  the  mitre,  for  the  priesthood  ;  the  crown, 
for  the  kingdom — making  me  the  lieutenant  of  Him  who  hath 
written  upon  his  thigh  and  upon  his  vesture.  King  of  kings,  and 
Lord  of  lords :  1  enjoy  alone  the  plenitude  of  power,  that 

OTHERS  MAY  SAY  OF  ME,  NEXT  TO  GoD,  '  and  OUt  of  Ms  fuhlCSS  IVB 

have  received!  !  r  "     Such  were  his  blasphemous  claims — which 
the  Church  of  Rome  has  not  denounced,  but  sustained. 
But  to  continue  our  list : — 


Popes. 
Honorius, 

Gregory  IX. 
Innocent  IV. 
Urban  IV.     - 
Clement  IV. 

Gregory  X.  - 

Nicholas  III. 

Martin  IV.     - 

Honorius  IV. 

Nicholas  IV. 

Boniface  VIIL 

John  XXII. 
Benedict  XH. 
Clement  VI. 

Urban  VI.      - 

Boniface  IX. 

Innocent  VII. 
Alexander  V. 
Sixtus  IV.     - 


y  Emp( 


PmifCEs. 
Frederic  II., 
C  Frederic  II., 
\  Wincessaus. 
Frederic  IL,  Emperor. 
Manfred    and  >  -ir-  r  c?-  m 

Conradin,     ^  Kings  of  Sicily. 

C  Alphonso,  King  of  Portugal. 

^Alphonso  X.,  King  of  Castile. 
Charles,  King  of  Anjou. 

C  Peter  of  Arragon. 

\  Michael  Paleologus,  Emperor. 

5  James,        ") 

^Alphonso,   t  Kings  of  Arragon. 
Alphonso,       J 

5  Philip  IV.,  King  of  France. 

^Eric  VIIL,  King  of  Denmark. 
Lewis  of  Bavaria, ") 
Lewis,  (.Emperors. 

Lewis,  J 

C  Jane,  Queen    ?    r  xt     i 

^Charles,  King5  ^^  ^^P^^^' 

TLewis  of  Anjou. 

t'  Richard,  >  ^.  n  t,     ,      , 

Edward,  5  ^^"SS  of  England. 
Wenchelaus,  Emperor. 
Ladislaus,  >  t^.  r  tvt     i 

Ladislaus,5^^"g««fN^Pl^«- 
Ladislaus,  King  of  Bohemia. 


245 

PoPKS.  PrIXCKS. 

TV      TT  C  Albert,  KinjT  of  Naples. 

JlUlUS   II.  -  -  St  •      VTf       T.--  IT? 

^  Lewis  All.,  King  of  France. 

Leo  X.  -         -  Stenon,  King  of  Sweden. 

Clement  VII.  -  Henry  VIIL,  >  ...         ^  ^^     ,      , 

n     1  TTT  XT  TTTTT    y  King  of  England. 

Paul  III.         -         -         Henry  \  III. ,5         ^  ^ 

Pius  V.  -  -         Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England. 

5  Henry  HI.,  King  of  France. 
tMxtus  V.       -         -  2  Henry,  King  of  Navarre. 

Gregoiy  XIV.         -  Henry  IV.,  Kingof  France  and  Navarre. 

Innocent  XI.  -         Ambassador  of  Louis  XIV.  of  France. 

This  terrific  list  needs  no  comment!  It  speaks  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  in  its  superabundant  ^^r^c/zce.  It  is  no  longer  merely 
an  ABSTRACT  point  to  be  proved.  It  is  a  part  of  the  history  of  the 
Church  and  of  its  creed,  for  ages.  It  is  quod  erat  faciendum. 
It  is  in  vain  to  cry  out  now,  this  was  only  discipline.  Does  any 
doctrine  of  the  Church  forbid  it?  Have  all  these  Popes  done  all 
these  things  with  the  connivance  of  the  Church  ?  Then  is  such 
a  Church  to  be  trusted,  doctrine,  or  no  doctrinel  Do  so  many 
Popes  assert  their  divine  right  to  depose  kings ;  dissolve  the  tie 
that  bound  their  people  to  them ;  transfer  kingdoms,  from  Asia  to 
Europe,  from  country  to  country,  and  from  man  to  man  ;  and  yet 
all  their  infallibilities  mistaken,  and  a  self-styled  insulated  inter- 
preter of  catholicity  contradict  this  great  cloud  of  witnessing 
Popes?  And  shall  we  take  his  word  against  all  these?  Impossi- 
ble. History  is  on  one  side ;  John  Hughes  on  the  other !  The 
history  of  Popes,  with  few  exceptions,  is  a  history  of  usurpation 
of  human  rights;  enmity  to  human  liberty;  lording  it  over  human 
conscience  ;  and  oppression,  when  possible,  of  the  temporal,  by 
the  spiritual  power. 

"It  is  well  known,"  says  an  admirable  author,  "  that  the  papacy 
is  a  species  of  universal  monarchy  of  a  mixed  nature,  partly  eccle- 
siastical, partly  civil,  founded  upon  the  pretence  of  divine  rights 
and  promoted  under  colour  of  religion ;  that  it  ever  aspires  to  un- 
limited extent,  universal  dominion,  and  worldly  wealth  and  gran- 
deur ;  that  it  claims  a  divine  authority  to  govern  the  2vorld,  and 
subject  princes  not  only  in  spiritucds,  but  in  temporals  also,  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ;  that  the  Roman  pontiffs  consider  themselves 
as  kings,  as  well  as  priests,  uniting  the  imperial  diadem  with  the 
mitre,  and  grasping  the  sword,  together  with  the  keys  of  St.  Peter; 
yea,  as  possessed  of  the  power  and  prerogatives  of  divinity, 
boasting  that  all  power  is  committed  to  them  in  heaven  and  in 
earth ;  in  consequence  of  which  they  claim  a  right  to  dispose  of 
crowns  and  kingdoms,  to  set  up  or  depose  princes,  and  to  pluck 
up  and  destroy,  at  their  pleasure.  In  consequence  of  that  absurd 
and  monstrous  system,  Rome  gradually  began  to  show  herself 
with  glory  and  ccliit  among  the  nations,  till  that  great  city  actu- 


24G 

tiUy  became  once  more  the  mistress  of  the  worlds  '  ruling  over 
THE  KINGS  OF  THE  EARTH  ;'  lier  fallen  empire  was  again  sei  up 
under  a  new  form,  and  \\e\-  pretended  vicars  oj  Christ,  in  the  end, 
outdid,  if  possible,  her  Pagan  Cxsars  in  pride,  magnificence, 
despotism,  and  cruel  tyranny,  as  well  as  in  idolatry,  luxury  and 
every  abominable  vice.  Having  obtained  repeated  donations  of 
cities,  lands,  and  provinces,  they  rose  to  the  rank  of  temporal 
princes.  But  these  being  entirely  unequal  to  their  insatiable 
avarice  and  ambition,  they  enlarged  their  claims  without  end. 
Not  satisfied  with  taxing  and  giving  laws  to  the  patrimony  of  St. 
Peter,  they  began  to  consider  all  cliristendom  as  his  patrimony ; 
and  accordingly  claimed  nis  pence.  (1)  By  methods  unheard  of 
before,  they  found  the  secret  of  raising  immense  revenues,  and  of 
drawing  the  wealth  of  the  world  to  their  cofiers.  Tiiey  used  tlie 
style  of  the  most  haughty  and  arbitrary  sovereigns.  They  affected 
more  than  royal  titles,  powers  and  honours ;  were  crowned  in 
state  ;  carried  about  on  men's  shoulders  in  procession  ;  received 
homage  and  adoration;  imposed  oaths  of  fidelity  and  allegiance  on 
the  clergy;  kept  a  numerous  train  of  servants  and  attendants;  had 
their  guards,  fleets  and  armies;  they  inflicted  capital  punishments; 
wore  the  imperial  ensigns,  and  in  military  armour  have  gone  in 
person  to  battle  ;  they  had  their  courts  and  tribunals,  with  long 
lists  of  dependent  officers  and  ministers  of  state  ;  they  received 
ambassadors  ;  despatched  their  nuncios  and  legates  a  latere,  (a 
sort  of  sub-Popes,  to  go  abroad  from  Rome,  and  represent  his 
majesty,)  into  all  nations  ;  they  have  meddled  in  all  the  aftairs  of 
princes  ;  managed  perpetual  intrigues  ;  fomented  endless  discords  ; 
mingled  in  all  broils  ;  sustained  themselves  judges  in  all  causes, 
umpires  in  all  controversies,  and  supreme  arbiters  of  peace  and 
war..  False  and  absurd  as  the  principles  are,  on  which  the  papal 
empire  is  built, yet  they  have,  in  innumerable  in- 
stances, been  reduced  to  practice,  and  too  often  with  admirable 
success.  There  is  no  state  where  the  papal  supremacy  was  at  all 
owned,  but  the  temporal  authority  has  also  been  tried,  and  ex- 
ercised, even  in  some  of  its  highest  branches.  So  that,  whetlier 
gained  by  subtlety,  extorted  by  force  and  terror,  or  yielded  up  by 
voluntary  abject  concessions,  one  way  or  other,  these  usurping 
Nimrods  found  themselves  actually  possessed  of  that  sovereignty 
which  they  so  much  wished  for,  and  so  falsely  pretended  to  be 
their  right.  Appeals  of  all  kinds  were  made  to  them,  and  all  dif- 
ferences submilted  to  their  decision.  They  crowned  and  consti- 
tuted the  emperors;  in  competitions  and  controverted  elections 
they  preferred  whom  they  pleased  ;  they  not  only  demanded  the 
surrender  of  every  kingdom  in  Europe,  as  tributary  fiefs  of  the 
Roman  See,  but  made  the  greater  part  of  them  really  to  be  so ; 
imposed  oaths  of  fidelity  and  vassalage  on  princes,  enlisting  them 

(1)  A  tax  levied  by  the  Popes  on  every  family  in  England,  paid  nnnvnlly. 


247 

under  their  banners,  and  sending  tliem  on  their  IVantic  expeditions 
ajgfainst  infidels,  to  break  them  more  tamely  to  the  yoke.  Royal 
titles  and  dignities  have  been  created,  or  annihilated  at  their  word; 
and  kingdoms,  like  toys,  given  away,  or  sold  to  their  sycophants 
and  slaves.  Against  all  who  have  offended  them,  or  dared  to  re- 
sist their  will,  they  have  armed  themselves  with  thunders,  de- 
nountnng  anathemas  upon  anathemas ;  sacrilegiously  profaning 
sacred  institutions,  to  which  they  have  added  others  of  their  own 
invention,  to  gratify  their  lust  of  dominion,  their  diabolical  pride, 
resentment  and  revenge  ;  times  without  number,  have  they  excom- 
municated princes,  deposing  them  from  their  governments,  inter- 
dicting their  dominions,  or  transferring  them  to  others  ;  absolving 
subjects  from  allegiance,  exciting  them  to  revolt,  and  authorizing 
them  to  depose  or  murder  their  excommunicated  sovereigns  ;  and 
their  iniquitous  sentences  and  barbarous  mandates  have  often  been 
but  too  well  obeyed.  If  the  objects  of  their  resentment  have 
escaped  falling  an  instant  sacrifice  to  it,  and  overcome  by  a  series 
of  insults  and  dangers,  they  have  at  any  time  applied  for  favour, 
the  terms  of  reconciliation  have  proved  more  intolerable,  than  all 
they  had  befoie  either  suffered  or  feared,  by  the  most  humiliating 
ceremonies,  the  basest  and  most  abject  submissions  and  conces- 
sions, and  sometimes  by  the  most  mortifying  penances,  they  have 
been  constrained  to  sacrifice  at  once  the  majesty  of  kings,  and  the 
dignity  of  men.  Intoxicated  with  their  success,  the  Popes  dis- 
daining to  acknowledge  any  limits  to  their  dominion,  have  at- 
tempted to  grasp  and  wield  the  sceptre  of  the  universe 

They  have  extended  their  sovereignty  to  every  quarter  of  the 
globe ;  to  islands  and  continents  ;  to  the  east,  and  to  the  west ;  to 
countries  civilized  and  barbarous,  Christian  and  Indian,  known 
and  unknown ;  to  land  and  sea ;  and  what  is  more,  to  heaven  and 
hell :  no  wonder  to  find  this  lower  world  trembling  at  their  voice, 
and  poor  mortals  paying  abject  homage  to  their  triple  crown,  when 
they  can  summon  all  the  celestial  thrones  and  principalities  above, 
and  command  the  whole  infernal  hierarchy,  without  exception,  to 
obey  them."  Now,  there  is  not  one  of  this  vast  catalogue  of 
crimes  and  usurpations,  which  we  do  not  stand  prepared  io  prove. 
If  the  Reverend  gentleman  will  select  from  them  one,  or  one  dozen, 
we  will,  at  once,  make  out  the  proof,  as  in  the  example  given  of 
the  excommunication  and  deposition  of  princes,  from  almost 
every  throne  in  Europe. 

But  can  an  American  audience,  or  ajiy  honest  man,  look  at  this 
sketch  of  the  claims  and  practices  of  the  head  of  the  church,  and 
not  own  that  liberty  lingers  not  in  a  communion  or  a  country 
which  she  controls  ? 

There  is  still  extant  in  Europe  a  book,  of  which  the  celebrated 
George  Finch,  Esq.,  a  living  British  writer,  thus  speaks: — 
*'  Through  the  kindness  of  Dr.  Sadler,  who  favoured  me  with  a 
sight  of  the  original  work  from  Trinity  College  Library,  Dublin, 


248 


I  was  enabled  to  verify  llie  quolatioiis.     (Some  of  which  we  give  . 
below.)     The  title  of  the  work  is   as  follows.      Three  Books  of 
the  Sacred  Ceremonies  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church;  printed  at 
Colosrne,  1571."     The  quotations  which  follow,  illustrate  1 


low 


popes  treated,  and  felt  towards,  kings  and  emperors  in  the  days  of 
their  power  and  glory.  When  the  Pope  had  a  procession,  it  Avas 
ordered, 

"1.  The  emperor  shall  hold  the  Pope's  stirrup. 

*'  2.  The  emperor  shall  lead  the  Pope's  horse. 

"  3.  The  emperor  must  bear  the  Pope's  chair  on  his  shoulder. 

*'  4.  The  emperor  shall  bear  up  the  Pope's  train. 

*'  5.  Let  the  emperor  bear  the  basin  and  ewer  to  the  Pope. 

*'  6.  Let  the  emperor  give  the  Pope  water. 

*'  7.  Tbe  emperor  shall  carry  the  Pope'' s  first  dish. 

*'  8.  The  emperor  shall  carry  the  Pope's  first  cm/)." 

Think,  gentle  auditor,  that  this  is  the  man  who  calls  himself 
servant  of  servants,  "  servus  servorum  ;^^  think,  in  contrast,  of 
our  blessed  Lord,  whose  vicar  the  Pope  calls  himself,  washing 
his  disciples^  fiet ;  and  Peter,  the  ^^ first  Fope,^''  saying,  "  silver 
and  ^old  have  1 7ione.^^  Ls  not  this  he  of  whom  the  Apostle  Paul 
speaks,  when  he  tells  us  of  "  that  man  of  sin,  and  son  of  perdi- 
tion ;  who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called 
God,  or  that  is  worshipped ;  so  that  he,  as  God,  sitteth  in  the 
temple  of  God,  shoiuing  himself  that  he  is  God.'"  (1) 

Take,  for  illustration,  the  following  facts.  "  But  now  we  pro- 
ceed to  relate  the  things  which  were  then  transacted  from  the  an- 
nals of  Roger,  which  were  compiled  at  that  time.  On  the  mor- 
row after  his  consecration,  the  lord  Pope  went  from  the  Lateran 
to  the  church  of  the  blessed  Peter,  and  Henry,  king  of  the  Ger- 
mans, met  him  there,  with  Constance,  his  wife,  and  a  large  body 

of  armed   men Our  lord,  the  Pope,  after  this,  led  them 

into  the  church,  and  anointed  him  as  emperor,  and  his  wife  as 
empress.  But  our  lord,  the  Pope,  sat  in  the  pontifical  chair,  hold- 
ing the  imperial  crown  between  his  feet,  the  emperor,  bending  his 
head,  received  the  crown ;  and  the  empress,  in  the  same  manner, 
from  the  feet  of  our  lord,  the  Pope.  But  our  lord,  the  Pope,  in- 
stantly struck  ivith  his  foot  the  emperor's  croivn,  and  cast  it  upon 
the  ground,  signifying  that  he  had  the  power  of  deposing  him 
from  the  empire  if  he  was  undeserving  of  it.  The  cardinals, 
however,  lifting  up  the  crown,  placed  it  upon  the  head  of  the 
emperor.^'  (2)  This  was  Pope  Celestine  IIL,  crowning  Henry 
of  Germany!  "The  Pope  was  conducted  to  the  church  of  St. 
Peter,  and  after  being  elevated  on  the  great  altar,  at  the  foot  of 
which  are  the  tombs  of  the  Holy  Apostles,  he  sat  upon  the  throne 
that  was  prepared  for  him,  and  was  there  adored  by  the  cardi- 
nals, (et  y  fut  adore  des  cardinaux,)  afterwards  by   the  bishops, 

(1)  See  2  Thes.  chap.  ii. 

(2)  From  Cardinal  Baronius's  Annals,  A.  D.  1191. 


249 

and  lastly,  by  the  whole  people,  who  crowded  to  kiss  his  feet."  (1) 
The  former  shows,  that  he  claims  divine  power  over  temporal 
princes  and  kingdoms  ;  the  latter,  that  he  claims  divine  worship 
audaciously,  venturing  to  ascend  the  altar  of  God,  and  there  to 
receive  tlie  adoration  of  men  1  Finally,  the  Pope  has  permitted 
himself  to  be  called  God ;  and  has  called  himself  God. 

In  the  Council  of  Lateran,  A.  D.  1512,  1513,  1514,  1515,  the 
Pope  was  expressly  called  God.  And  in  Roscoe's  account  of  the 
inauguration  of  Pope  Alexander  VI.  we  are  told,  that  "  while  the 
new  pontiff  passed  through  the  triumphal  arches,  erected  to  his 
honour,  he  might  have  read  the  inscriptions,  which  augured  the 
return  of  the  golden  age — and  hailed  him  a  god."  Of  these,  the 
following  one  may  serve  as  a  sufficient  specimen.  "  Ro7ne  was 
great  under  Caesar,  but  now  she  is  greatest;  Alexander  VI. 
reigns ;  the  former  was  a  man,  the  latter  is  a  god."  Caesare 
majora  fuit,  nunc  Roma  est  maxima;  sixtus  regnat  Alexander;  ille 
viR,  iste  DEUs.  (2) 

Pope  Nicholas,  in  his  letter  to  the  Emperor  Michael,  (3)  says, 
*'z7  may  very  evidently  be  shown,  that  the  Pope,  who,  [as  we 
have  already  related,]  was  called  God,  by  Prince  Constantino 
the  Pius,  can  neither  be  bound  nor  released  by  the  secular  power, 

FOR    IT    IS    MANIFEST    THAT     GoD    CANNOT     BE     JUDGED    OF    MEN." 

(Satis  evidenter  ostenditur,  a  seculari  potestate,  nee  ligari  piorsus 
nee  solvi  posse  pontificem,  quern  constat  a  pio  principe  Constan- 
tino, (quod  longe  superius  memoravimus,)  Deum  appellatum  ;  nee 
posse  Deum,  ab  hominibus  judicari  manifestum  est.) 

Here,  after  all  quibbles  have  been  tried,  in  vain,  the  Pope 
claims  exemption  from  human  authority,  on  the  ground  of  God- 
SHip.  It  is  true,  the  Rev.  gentleman  had  tried,  by  much  evasion, 
to  weaken  the  force  of  this  terrible  testimony.  In  the  progress  of 
the  debate  Mr.  Hughes  called  on  Mr.  Kearney,  (a  gentleman  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  who  was  present,  and  who  was 
commended  by  Mr.  H.  as  a  scholar,)  to  translate  the  passage  just 
quoted.  Mr.  Breckinridge  called  for  Dr.  Wiley,  but  he  was  not 
present.  Mr.  Kearney  then  rendered  the  passage  as  follows  : 
"  It  is  shown  sufficiently  evident,  that  the  pontiff  cannot  be 
hound  altogether,  nor  dissolved,  by  the  secular  power,  ivho,  it  is 
evident,  frotn  the  pious  Prince  Constantine,  was  called  a  God — 
and  that  God  cannot  be  indicated  by  menis  manifest.^^  Being  again 
asked,  as  to  the  last  member  of  the  sentence,  Mr.  Kearney  looked 
more  closely  at  the  Latin,  and  said,  he  had  been  misled  by  the  old 
spelling,  and  had  mistaken  judicari  for  indicari.  He  then  ren- 
dered the  last  clause  thus:  "  that  God  cannot  be  judged  by  men 
is  manifest.''     Mr.  Hughes  asked  him  to  say  whether  it  was  the 

(1)  Fleury,  Ecc.  His.  torn.  15.  lib.  5. 

(2)  Corio-Storia  di  Milano,  par.  7.  p.  188,  as  cited  by  Fmch. 

(3)  See  Decretals,  First  Part,  Dist.  9G,  chap.  7. 

32 


250 

Pope  who  said  tliis,  or  Constantine  ?  Mr.  Kearney  replied,  it 
was  Constantine.  Mr.  Breckinridge  resumed.  The  gentleman 
laid  stress  on  the  fact,  that  these  were  the  words,  not  of  Pope 
Nicholas,  or  Pope  Leo,  but  of  the  Emperor  Constantine.  But 
ihe  Pope  Nicholas  had  cited  them  to  the  Emperor  Michael,  to 
prove  that  a  previous  emperor  had  called  2. previous  Pope,  God! 
For  what  did  the  Pope  quote  the  words  ?  To  show  that  the  Pope 
was  above  human  tribunals,  because  he  was  a  god  on  earth.  It 
is  evident  that  this  is  the  very  use  for  which  the  Pope  cited  the 
words.  If  not  for  this,  for  what  purpose?  But  Mr.  Hughes 
would  have  it,  that  ^^  pontijicem^^  meant  not  the  Pope,  but  every 
priest!  that  is,  that  no  priest  could  be  bound  by  the  secular 
power  ;  and  why  ?  Because  he  was  a  god  on  earth ;  and  God  could 
not  be  judged  of  inen  I  It  came  then  to  this,  that  all  priests 
were  gods  !  We  had  thought  before,  that  there  was  but  one  god 
among  them,  and  that  was  the  Pope.  But  he  stood  corrected  ; 
for  it  seemed,  by  Mr.  Hughes's  own  interpretation,  every  parish 
priest  is  a  god ! 

The  above  narrative  is  taken,  in  substance,  from  the  steno- 
grapher''s  report  of  the  debate.  This  specimen  may  help  to  show 
why  it  is  that  the  gentleman  did  not  wish  that  report  published  ; 
and  why  this  debate  is  now  nearly  one  year  behind  its  time. 


251 


"/^  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  ?^^ 


NEGATIVE  VI.— MR.  HUGHES. 

Mr.  President  : — 
The  gentleman  intimates  that  I  have  refused  to  publish  the  re- 
port of  the  stenographer,  and  that  I  have  caused  the  delay  of  the 
publication.  I  shall  state  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  leave  the  pub- 
lic to  decide.  1st.  As  to  the  stenographer,  ive  had  none  during 
the  first  three  evenings  of  the  discussion.  Was  that  my  fault? 
2d.  Of  the  remainder,  he  did  not  return  some  of  the  speeches 
for  dhoutfour  months  after  the  close  of  the  debate.  Was  that  my 
fault?  3d.  Both  he  and  Mr.  Breckinridge,  almost  immediately 
after  its  close,  had  to  attend  the  General  Assembly  at  Pittsburg; 
the  latter  to  help  to  excommunicate  the  whole  Catholic  Church  pre- 
sent, past  and  future ;  and  the  former,  to  make  a  report  of  the 
proceedings.  Was  that  my  fault?  4th.  The  stenographer  had 
to  go,  then,  to  Cincinnati,  where  Doctor  Beecher  was  to  be  tried 
for  heresy.  Was  I  the  cause  of  this  delay?  Finally,  when  it 
suited  the  convenience  of  the  stenographer  to  return  the  remainder 
of  the  speeches,  he  did  so ;  and  when  I  was  making  arrangements 
to  go  to  Mexico,  the  gentleman  became  quite  impatient  to  have 
the  debate  published.  Now  the  only  difficulty  was  to  know  how, 
by  what  rule,  the  report  of  the  stenographer  should  be  corrected  ? 
That  it  required  the  correction  of  the  speakers  is  undenied,  as  the 
stenographer  himself  frequently  put  in  the  margin.  "  This,  I  do 
not  understand,"  "here  1  could  not  make  out  the  notes,"  "this  is 
spoiled,"  (fee.  &c.  In  order,  therefore,  that  the  mode  of  correction 
might  not  be  an  occasion  of  new  and  interminable  disputes,  I  pro- 
posed that  each  speaker  should  correct,  as  he  thought  proper. 
The  gentleman,  unable  to  discover  any  better  rule,  adopted  it,  and 
led  the  way,  in  the  correction  of  his  first  speech,  which  has 
been  followed  up  to  the  present  time.  These  are  the  facts  of  the 
case.  The  blame,  therefore,  must  rest  on  those  to  whom  it  belongs, 
and  not  on  me. 

When  the  gentleman  says,  that  I  have  kept  his  speech  a  great 
many  days,  he  ought  to  recollect,  even  if  the  fact  were  as  he  states, 
that  I  have  duties  to  attend  to,  which  I  deem  much  more  important; 
and  that  it  is  only  the  intervals  of  leisure,  which  are  few  and  far 
between,  that  I  can  devote  to  him  and  his  speeches.  As  to  his 
charges  of  " personality,"  "attacks  on  his  reputation,"  "malig- 


252 

NiTY  AND  FALSEHOOD,"  and  Other  scurrilous  matter  in  which  his 
speech  abounds,  1  look  upon  them  as  ebullitions  of  temper,  which 
plead  for  pity,  at  the  same  time  that  they  destroy  all  claim  or 
title  to  it.  His  charges  are  silly,  vague  and  unfounded.  Let  him 
SPECIFY,  and  then  let  him  prove.  But  as  long  as  he  withholds 
the  proof,  his  crimination  is  ridiculous.  When  /  make  a  charge, 
I  prove  it.  I  begin  with  a  fact,  which  he  cannot  deny.  I  reason 
from  that  fact,  with  a  strict  and  just  induction  of  consequences, 
which  he  does  not  venture  to  dispute.  I  have  never  gone  out  of 
the  question,  to  find  matter  of  censure  ;  but  confined  myself  strictly 
to  his  labours,  as  the  gratuitous  defamer  of  his  Catholic  fellow- 
citizens.  When  I  wish  to  prove  that  in  carrying  on  this  work  of 
defamation,  he  sinned  against  both  truth  and  knowledge,  I  found 
abundant  testimony  in  his  own  tvritings  and  assertions^  to  estab- 
lish the  fact;  and  the  fact,  once  established,  remains.  His  own 
pen,  his  own  words  have  been  the  true,  real  enemy  of  his  repu- 
tation. Before  he  takes  pains  to  account  for  my  pretended  calum- 
nies by  citing  ''Pascal,  a  Catholic,  but  a  Jansenist,"'(he  might  as 
well  have  said  a  "  Catholic  but  an  atheist,''^)  let  him  first  specify, 
and  prove  one  single  charge  of  calumny  against  me.  He  does  not, 
he  cannot.  Neither  need  he  be  at  a  loss  for  an  immoral  principle, 
to  authorize  the  dishonourable  means  by  which  he  attempts  to 
sustain  himself  in  this  discussion.  The  same  doctrine  of  his 
creed,  which  teaches  him  that  good  works  have  no  merit,  and  that 
evil  works  cannot  hinder  his  salvation,  if  he  is  one  of  the  "  fore- 
ordained," makes  all  means  equal.  Calumny  itself  never  imputed 
to  the  Jesuits  so  broad  a  shield  for  the  covering  of  iniquity,  as 
this,  under  which  his  creed  protects  its  members.  By  this,  Cal- 
vin was  a  saint,  although  guilty  of  the  blood  of  his  victims.  And 
if  such  crimes  could  not  hinder  the  master  from  being  a  saint, 
smaller  transgressions  cannot  defeat  the  destiny  of  the  disciples, 
who  expect  to  be  saved  by  the  "decree"  of  God,  and  by  faith 
alone.  Nay,  they  are  never  so  much  in  danger  of  hell,  as  when 
they  believe  that  good  works  could  avail  anything,  in  aiding  them 
to  escape  it. 

He  says  "  he  has  held  up  three  cases  of  fraud  committed  by 
me."  There  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  the  statement,  as  I  have 
shown  before.  I  proved  that  Mosheim  himself  applies  the  name 
of  Albigenses  to  the  "fanatics,"  whom  he  describes,  and  of  whom 
I  spoke.  Is  there  any  fraud  in  this  ?  I  refer  the  reader  to  my 
former  speech,  in  which  I  settle  the  question  in  a  way  which 
left  the  gentleman  not  a  word  to  say  in  reply.  So  much  for  the 
first  fraud.  The  second  was  a  mistake,  in  which  the  gentleman 
participated  with  me,  but  which  I  promptly  corrected,  as  soon  as 
I  discovered  it.  Was  there  any  fraud  in  this  ?  The  third  is  that 
in  which  he  charges  me  with  having  suppressed  the  reading  of  a 
portion  of  a  document  which  1  handed  in  to  the  stenographer,  which, 
he   says,  "  charged  Presbyterians    with  horrible   principles  and 


253 

crimes."  The  principles  here  referred  to,  are  those  of  absolute 
"predestination,"  and  the  gentleman  characterizes  them  properly, 
when  he  calls  them  "  horrible."  But  they  are  in  the  "  CON- 
FESSION OF  FAITH,"  and  he  defends  them.  So  far,  there- 
fore, there  could  be  no  motive  to  suppress  the  reading.  But  when 
he  says  I  charged  Presbyterians  at  the  same  time,  with  "horrible 
crimes,"  he  only  bears  false  witness  against  his  neighbour.  This 
I  have  also  cleared  up  in  a  former  speech.  I  showed  that,  accord- 
ing to  this  doctrine,  Presbyterians  might  commit  any  crime, 
without  risking  their  hopes  of  happiness,  or  fear  of  punishment  in 
the  next  world,  where  every  thing  is  fixed  by  eternal,  immutable, 
absolute  election  and  reprobation,  irrespective  of  good  works  or 
bad  works  done  in  the  flesh.  But  I  did  not  charge  Presbyterians 
Avith  being  guilty  of  the  "horrible  crimes,"  to  which  this  doctrine 
invited  them.  That  I  may  have  omitted,  on  any  occasion  of  read- 
ing maimscript,  a  sentence  by  mistake,  is  possible,  and  those  who 
recollect  the  many  interruptions  to  which  both  parties  were  subject 
on  such  occasions,  "will  not  be  surprised  that  such  a  thing  should 
have  occurred,  although  I  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  it  did 
occur  even  in  this  instance.  But  the  charge  of  "fraud,"  implies 
that  it  did  occur,  and  was  intentional.  I  deny  the  first  as  un- 
founded in  fact,  and  the  latter  as  equally  foolish  and  FALSE. 

How  could  the  gentleman  charge  me  with  an  intention  fabri- 
cated in  his  own  mind,  and  imputed  to  me  on  the  strength  of  a  fact, 
which  he  has  asserted,  which  I  have  denied,, and  which  he  has  not 
proved  ?  What  motive  was  there  ?  What  evidence  is  there,  that 
in  one  place  I  suppressed  the  reading  of  an  argument  which  I 
have  developed  again  and  again,  throughout  the  discussion  ?  There 
is  not  in  the  assembly,  another  mind,  perhaps,  that  would  harbour 
such  a  suspicion,  on  such  absurd  grounds ;  and  it  is  no  evidence  of 
"  conscious  rectitude,"  in  the  gentleman  himself,  that  he  should 
have  harboured,  and  even  ventured  to  express  it,  without  the 
shadow  of  proof.  I  fling  it  back  upon  him  with  the  indignation 
which  it  is  calculated  to  excite,  and  with  only  this  rebuke,  that 
his  example,  even  if  I  had  not  known  it  before,  has  taught  me 
and  this  audience  that  "  honesty,  in  literary,  as  well  as  social  inter- 
course, is  the  best  policy."  If  he  had  paid  strict  attention  to  this 
moral  adage,  he  would  not  have  been  what  he  now  is.  This  is 
the  second  time  that  I  have  had  to  refute  these  charges ;  and,  like 
bubbles  floating  on  the  sea  of  temper,  to  blow  them  into  thin  air. 
But  let  us  turn  to  something  substantial. 

You  must  have  been  amused,  gentlemen,  to  observe  the  variety 
of  expedients  employed  by  Mr.  Breckinridge  to  evade  the  question 
about  Caranza.  Poor  human  nature !  How  much  better  would 
it  have  been' for  him  to  have  acknowledged  the  facts,  and  do  hon- 
our to  injured  truth,  of  which  he  calls  himself  a  minister?  How 
much  more  honourable  for  him  tO"  have  acknowledged,  that  when 
he  said  that  "he  copied  from  Caranza,"  he   was  betrayed  by 


254 

his  pen?  That  when  he  said  he  copied  "continuously,"  he 
was  deceived  by  his  spectacles.  Thai,  when  he  said  he  "  had 
THE  ORIGINAL  BEFORE  HIM,"  he  was  Only  Copying  from  Faber, 
or  some  other  blind  guide.  That,  when  he  said  he  "omitted" 
part  of  Caranza,  "for  want  of  room,"  he  deceived  his  readers 
unintentionally.  That  the  part  which  he  has  quoted,  as  being 
in  Caranza,  and  which  is  not  in  Caranza,  was  found  just  so, 
in  the  book  from  which  he  copied,  and  that  he  does  not  know 
to  what  author  it  belongs.  Yes^  yes  ;  any  other  course  would 
have  been  mercy  to  his  own  reputation,  compared  with  that  which 
the  gentleman  has  thought  proper  to  pursue.  Addison  has  re- 
marked somewhere  in  his  Spectator,  that  falsehood  is  like  a 
house  without  a  foundation,  "  it  requires  to  be  supported  by 
props."  And,  although  I  cannot  praise  the  gentleman  as  an  archi- 
tect, yet  he  has  displayed  considerable  talents  in  finding  and  apply- 
ing props.  He  shuns  the  real  question,  and  agitates  points  that  are 
not  in  dispute.  He  talks  about  "  substance,"  and  "  sense,"  <fcc.  &;c. 
This  is  not  the  question.  He  shifts  it  from  what  is  in  dispute, 
to  what  is  not  in  dispute.  The  question  is,  did  he  state  truth, 
when  he  said  "  unhesitatingly,  that  he  copied  from  Caranza — ^literal- 
ly  and  continuously  ?"  I  say,  he  did  not ;  and  I  say  more,  that  if  I 
were  in  his  situation,  I  should  never  stand  in  a  Christian  pulpit, 
until  I  had  proved  the  truth  of  that  assertion,  or  acknowledged  its 
falsity.  I  bring  him  to  the  point;  it  is  the  only  advantage  that 
oral  disputation  can  have  over  written  controversy,  that  you  can 
call  your  opponent  to  account,  point  out  his  words,  and,  face  to 
face,  hold  him  responsible  for  them,  when  they  are,  as  Addison 
expresses  it,  a  house  that  requires  to  be  supported  by  props,  for 
want  of  a  foundation.  Sir,  I  cautioned  the  gentleman  to  beware 
of  his  authorities ;  he  slighted  my  advice,  and  compels  me  to  de- 
fend truth,  at  the  expense  of  what  may  seem,  but  is  not,  charity. 
I  take  no  pleasure  in  exposing  facts,  which  must  necessarily  have 
their  influence  in  public  judgment,  against  the  gentleman's  pre- 
tensions. 

As  to  the  charge  about  the  second  commandment  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  the  gentleman  bears  me  out  in  regard  to  all  I  said  in 
my  last  speech.  It  was  found  in  the  very  edition  which  he 
brought  from  New  York  to  sustain  his  calumny  ! !  This  he  ac- 
knowledges, and  this  settles  the  question ; — convicting  him,  by 
his  own  testimony,  of  having  uttered  what  was  "  untrue,"  when 
he  said  it  contained  '^  only  four  words  of  the  second  command- 
ment.^^ His  display  about  its  being  "  suppressed,"  and  then 
"  brought  up,"  and  "  kept  out  of  view  as  much  as  possible,"  is  to 
be  charged  to  the  chapter  on  "  propping." 

The  exhibition  of  his  false  statements,  with  regard  to  the  other 
catechisms,  must  be  reserved  to  another  time.  If  he  understood 
the  history  of  the  Protestant  Scriptures,  he  would  know  that  the 
word  "  image*^  is  one  which  their  translators  supplied,  but  which 


255 

is  not  in  the  original.     But  it  is  useless  to  waste  time  in  giving 
him  what  he  vastly  stands  in  need  of — information. 

In  attempting  to  cover  his  misrepresentation  of  Bellarmine,  he 
«ays,  that  his  writings,  except  one  portion,  ascribing  only  indirect 
power  to  the  Pope  over  temporal  matters,  are  approved  of,  and 
*'  declared  to  contain  no  doctrine  contrary  to  the  Catholic 
FAITH."  Yes  ;  but  does  this  make  it  appear,  that  when  he  gives, 
not  the  "  doctrine  of  Catholic  faith,"  but  the  opinion  of  the  writer 
on  political  questions,  Catholics  are  to  receive  his  opinions,  as 
doctrines  of  their  Church?  I  believe  not.  I  wish  the  gentleman 
would  review  his  logic,  if  he  ever  studied  any. 

He  says,  that  "  Calvin  agreed  with  Bellarmine."  Indeed ! 
I^alvin,  who  died  in  1564,  agreed  with  Bellarmine,  who  wrote 
and  lived  more  than  half  a  century  afterwards  ! !  Bellarmine  co- 
pied Calvin's  doctrine  on  persecution,  just  as  the  gentleman  copied 
from  Faber,  stating  that  Faber  "  had  quoted  as  he  had  done." 
But  if  persecution  had  been  a  Catholic  tenet  of  faith,  Calvin's  au- 
thority would  never  have  been  adduced.  Bellarmine  gave  cita- 
tions also  from  Augustine  and  Chrysostom,  and  hence  the  gentle- 
man quotes  this  as  the  criterion  of  Catholic  doctrine — "  the  con- 
sent of  the  fathers."  Even  here  he  garbles,  by  leaving  out  tlie 
word  which  determines  the  rule.  The  words  are  the  *'  unanimous 
CONSENT  OF  THE  FATHERS."  He  kuows  the  word  too  well  to  have 
omitted  it  by  accident.  Now,  many  of  the  fathers,  TertuUian,  St. 
Ambrose,  Leo  the  Great,  and  others,  condemned  persecution ;  and 
since  their  "  unanimous  consent"  is  the  sign  of  doctrine,  we  see 
the  reason  why  the  word  "  unanimous"  was  suppressed.  I  ex- 
plained, in  my  last,  the  meaning  of  Bellarmine,  ^nd  the  gentleman 
has  nothing  to  say  in  reply,  except  by  notes  of  interrogation. 
"  Does  Bellarmine,"  he  asks,  "  say  it  is  opinion?"  No; — for 
he  did  not  conceive  that  any  one  should  be  so  ignorant  as  to  sup- 
pose it  to  be  anything  else  but  opinion.  Mr.  B.  tells  us,  (stupite 
gentes!)that  "Protestants  are  now  the  majority  in  France!" 
Such  ignorance  is  too  gross,  not  to  be  feigned.  He  asks,  are  Pro- 
testants "  tolerated  in  Austria,  so  as  to  have  room  to  increase?^'' 
Yes  ;  except  that  they  are  not  yet  allowed  to  increase  by  pulling 
down  the  '*  monuments  of  idolatry."  So  in  Belgium — so  in  Italy 
itself;  we  never  hear  of  their  putting  Protestants  to  death  by  vir- 
tue of  a  Catholic  majority.  Now,  if  it  were  a  Catholic  doctrine, 
to  be  practised  wherever  Catholics  have  the  power,  as  he  inter- 
prets Bellarmine,  here  is  Ihe  power  in  all  these  countries,  and  yet 
the  doctrine,  so  falsely  imputed,  is  never  heard  of. 

The  gentleman's  account  of  the  Reformers  is  truly  amusing. 
As  an  argument  and  evidence  that  the  Catholic  religion  is  not  so 
exterminating  as  his  Commentary  on  Bellarmine  would  make  it 
appear,  I  referred  to  the  case  of  the  Reformers.  Surely  the 
Catholics  were  a  majority  then.  All  they  wanted  to  extirpate  the 
Reformers,  was  a  doctrine  of  their  religion  requiring  them  to  do 


256 

so.  The  reason  why  they  did  not  do  so,  was,  it  appears  by  the 
gentleman's  philosophical  account,  that  the  "  z^ars  of  near  half 
a  century  could  not  extinguish  them.'"  Then  they  carried  on 
wars  ! !  Against  whom  1  Against  their  countries.  Against  their 
lawful  goveriiments.  A  beautiful  "  Reformation"  truly  !  Admi- 
rable apostles  of  tlie  new  religion,  who  spread  their  gospel  by 
civil  wars!  What  simpletons  the  first  Christians  were,  who  knew 
how  to  suffer^  whereas  if  they  had  possessed  a  spark  of  the  Ge- 
neva Revelation,  they  would  have  been  trained  to  fight.  The 
gentleman  has  told  the  secret  of  the  Reformation. 

The  compliment  paid  to  the  patriotism  of  "  the  Gastons,  the 
Carrolls,  and  the  Careys,"  will,  no  doubt  be  duly  appreciated, 
coupled  as  it  is  with  the  charge  that  they  are  faithless  to  the 
principles  of  the  religion  which  they  profess.  I  will  give  one 
single  passage  from  the  speech  of  the  eloquent  Judge  Gaston, 
before  the  convention  of  his  state,  which  is  enough  to  refute  all 
the  gentleman  has  said  in  the  whole  of  his  effort  to  support  his 
cause  against  the  Catholic  religion. 

'*  But  it  has  been  objected,  that  the  Catholic  religion  is  un- 
favourable to  freedom,  nay  even  incompatible  with  republican 
institutions.  Ingenious  speculations  on  such  matters  are  worth 
little,  and  prove  still  less.  Let  me  ask  who  obtained  the  great 
charter  of  English  freedom,  but  the  Catholic  prelate,  and  barons 
at  Runnemede?  The  oldest — the  purest  democracy  on  earth,  is 
the  little  Catholic  republic  of  St.  Marino,  not  a  day's  journey 
from  Rome.  It  has  existed  now  for  fourteen  hundred  years,  and 
is  so  jealous  of  arbitrary  power,  that  the  executive  authority  is 
divided  between  two  governors,  who  are  elected  every  three 
months.  Was  William  Tell,  the  founder  of  Swiss  liberty,  a 
royalist?  Are  the  Catholics  of  the  Swiss  cantons  in  love  with 
tyranny  ?  Are  the  Irish  Catholics  friends  to  passive  obedience  and 
non-resistance  ?  Was  La  Fayette,  Pulaski,  or  Kosciusko,  a  foe  to 
civil  freedom  ?  Was  Charles  Carroll,  of  Carrollton,  unwilling  to 
jeopard  fortune  in  the  cause  of  liberty  ?  Let  me  give  you,  however, 
the  testimony  of  George  Washington.  On  his  accession  to  the 
presidency,  he  was  addressed  by  the  American  Catholics,  who, 
adverting  to  the  restrictions  on  their  worship  then  existing  in 
some  of  the  states,  expressed  themselves  thus — '  The  prospect 
of  national  prosperity  is  peculiarly  pleasing  to  us  on  another  ac- 
count; because,  while  our  country  preserves  her  freedom  and 
independence  we  shall  have  well-founded  title  to  claim  from  her 
justice  the  equal  rights  of  citizenship,  as  the  price  of  our  blood 
spilt  under  your  eye,  and  of  our  common  exertions  for  her  defence, 
under  your  auspicious  conduct.'  This  great  man,  who  was  utterly 
incapable  of  flattery  and  deceit,  utters  in  answer  the  following 
sentiments  which  I  give  in  his  own  words ;  '  As  mankind  be- 
comes more  liberal,  they  will  be  more  apt  to  allow  that  all  those 
who  conduct  themselves  as  worthy  members  of  the  community. 


257 

are  equally  entitled  to  the  protection  of  civil  government.  I  hope 
ever  to  see  America  among  the  foremost  nations  in  examples  of 
justice  and  liberality  ;  and  I  presume  that  your  fellow-citizens 
will  not  forget  the  patriotic  part  which  you  took  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  their  revolution,  and  the  establishment  of  their  go- 
vernment, or  the  important  assistance  which  they  received  from  a 
nation  in  which  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  is  professed.'  By  the 
by,  sir,  I  would  pause  for  a  moment  to  call  the  attention  of  this 
committee  to  some  of  the  names  subscribed  to  this  address. 
Among  them  are  those  of  John  Carroll,  the  first  Roman  Catholic 
bishop  in  the  United  States,  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrollton,  and 
Thomas  Fitsimmons  ;  for  the  character  of  these  distinguished 
men,  if  they  needed  vouchers,  I  would  confidently  call  on  the 
venerable  president  of  ihis  Convention.  Bishop  Carroll  was  one 
of  the  best  of  men  and  most  humble  and  devout  of  Christians.  I 
shall  never  forget  a  tribute  to  his  memory  paid  by  the  good  and 
venerable  Protestant  Bishop  White,  when  contrasting  the  piety 
with  which  the  Christian  Carroll  met  death,  with  the  cold  trifling 
that  characterized  the  last  moments  of  the  sceptical  David  Hume. 
I  know  not  whether  the  tribute  was  more  honourable  to  the  piety  of 
the  dead,  or  to  the  charity  of  the  living  prelate.  Charles  Carroll 
of  Carrollton,  the  last  survivor  of  the  signers  of  American  inde- 
pendence— at  whose  death  both  houses  of  the  legislature  of  North 
Carolina  unanimously  testified  their  sorrow  as  at  a  national  be- 
reavement! Thomas  Fitsimmons,  one  of  the  illustrious  convention 
that  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  for. several 
years  the  representative  in  Congress  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia. 
Were  these,  arid  such  as  these,  foes  to  freedom  and  unfit  for 
republicanism  ?  Would  it  be  dangerous  to  permit  such  men  to  be 
sheriffs  or  constables  in  the  land?  Read  the  funeral  eulogium  of 
Charles  Carroll,  delivered  at  Rome  by  Bishop  England — one  of 
the  greatest  ornaments  of  the  American  Catholic  church — a  fo- 
reigner indeed  by  birth,  but  an  American  by  adoption,  and  who, 
becoming  an  American,  solemnly  abjured  all  allegiance  to  every 
foreign  king,  prince,  and  potentate  whatever — that  eulogium  which 
was  so  much  carped  at  by  English  royalists,  and  English  tories— 
and  I  think  you  will  find  it  democratic  enough  to  suit  the  taste, 
and  find  an  echo  in  the  heart  of  the  sternest  republican  amongst 
us.  Catholics  are  of  all  countries,  of  all  governments,  of  all 
political  creeds.  In  all  they  are  taught  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
is  not  of  this  world — and  that  it  is  their  duty  to  render  unto  Caesar 
the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are 
God's." 

There,  sir,  is  enough  to  put  to  shame  the  ignorant  revilei-s  of 
Catholic  principles.  There  is  the  true  state  of  the  case.  "  Ca- 
tholics are  of  all  countries,  of  all  governments,  of  all  political 
creeds."  And  who  was  that  "Archbishop  Carroll"  to  whose 
virtue  the  "venerable  Bishop  White"  bore  such  honourable  testi- 

33 


258 

mony?  He  was  a  Jesuit;  belonged  to  that  body  which  the  gentle- 
man, with  a  grossness  familiar  to  his  pen,  has  designated  as  the 
*'  WICKED  AND  POLLUTED  JESUIT  PRIESTHOOD." 
Now  I  will  only  say  in  answer,  that  from  this  priesthood,  the 
Presbyterian  parsons,  (at  least  the  class  of  them  to  which  the 
gentleman  belongs,)  might  learn  much  of  piety,  history,  philo- 
sophy, SCIENCE,  GENERAL  INFORMATION; — but,  abovc  all,  much  of 
what  is  much  needed, — HUMILITY  and  good  manners.  Whether 
this  land  is  to  be  ruled  by  a  "papal  mob,"  or  a  "Presbyterian 
mob,"  time  only  can  determine.  I  hope  it  will  never  be  ruled  by 
either.  At  present  the  aspirants  to  rule  are  the  gentleman  himself 
and  his  "  gallant  colleagues"  in  the  propagation  of  the  anti-Ca- 
tholic conspiracy. 

The  gentleman  repeats  himself  in  such  detail,  that  I  must 
leave  him  to  his  "  ingenious. speculations."  He  is  determined  to 
make  out  the  evidence  in  some  shape,  and  what  Bellarmine  does 
710/  say  for  the  church,  he  says  for  Bellarmine.  •  He  does  not 
argue,  he  asserts.  He  seems  to  think  that  to  employ  reasoning 
for  his  readers,  would  be  throwing  pearls  to  swine.  I  think  he 
is  mistaken.  I  think  there  is  a  portion  of  them,  even  Presby- 
terians, who  will  expect  to  see  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
which  is  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  who  will  be 
disappointed,  if  not  disgusted,  to  find  that  he  can  only  torture  the 
assertions  pf  Bellarmine  by  assertions  of  his  own. 

He  boasts  of  the  "  barbed  arguments"  of  Dr.  Miller,  and  it  is 
but  fair  that  the  meeting  should  have  a  specimen  of  them.  I  shall 
take  it  from  his  ribaldrous  compilation,  entitled  the  "  History  of 
Popery."  In  order  to  give  his  readers  a  correct  idea  of  the 
Catholic  religion,  this  venerable  calumniator  is  not  ashamed  to 
copy  into  his  work  the  burlesque  excortvinunication  of  Tristam 
Shandy,  part  of  which  is  as  follows — "  May  he  he  cursed  in 
living  and  dyings  in  eating  and  drinking^  in  being  hungry ^  in 
being  thirsty  ^  in  fasting,  in  sleeping,  in  slumbering,  in  loaking, 
in  walking  in  standing,  in  sitting,  in  lying,  iyi  working,  in 
resting.  May  he  be  cursed  in  all  the  poivers  of  his  body.  May 
he  be  cursed  within  and  without.  May  he  be  cursed  in  the  hair 
of  his  head;  may  he  be  cursed  in  his  brain.  May  he  be  cursed 
in  the  crown  of  his  head,  in  his  temples,  in  his  forehead,  in  his 
ears,  in  his  eyebrows,  in  his  cheeks,  in  his  jawbones,  in  his 
nostrils,  in  his  fore-teeth,  in  his  grinders,  ^-c,  ^-c."  Is  not  this 
a  "  barbed  argument"  of  which  the  friends  of  Dr.  Miller  may  be 
proud?  Is  it  not  evidence  of  extensive  erudition,  and  a  delicate 
conscience  ?  Is  it  not  worthy  of  the  man  who  lifts  his  face  to 
heaven,  and  tells  God  that  the  "Catholics  are  his  enemies." 

But  let  us  give  another  of  these  "  barbed  arguments.''''  It  is  a 
story  about  a  Scotch  lady  who  liappened  to  be  on  a  visit  in  Dublin 
on  a  very  interesting  occasion,  when, a  number  of  souls  were  to  be 
translated  out  of  purgatory.     The  operation  was  to  take  place  in 


259    . 

t)ne  of  the  Catholic  chapels,  and  it  appears  tliat  jmrgcilory  teas 
tender  the  floor.  The  priest  having  received  his  wages,  and  all 
things  heing  ready,  the  doctor  goes  on  to  tell  us  that,  *'  Imme- 
(licit  ell/  a  moveable  part  of  the  floor,  imocciqned  of  course^  opened, 
and  there  issued  forth  from  it  living  creatures  as  black  as  jet. 
Wlienthe  little  crentures  began  to  move  about,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent the  deception  from  being  detected,  the  lights  were  all  extin- 
guished,  as  if  by  magir.  The  lady  had  eyed  the  souls'  repre- 
sentatives  very  narroicly,  and  had  observed  that  there  ivas  one 
of  them  ivithin  her  reach;  and  ivith  a  degree  of  courage  that 
would  not  be  exercised  by  every  one  in  her  circumstances,  she 
seized  and  secured  if-  ^he  took  it  home,  and  showed  it  to  the 
Q-entlcman  who  had  introduced  her  to  the  chapel,  when  it  turned 
tut  to  bt  a  CRAB  DRESSED  IN  BLACK  VELVET.'^ 

Such  is  Dr.  Miller's  "  History  of  Popery."  Such  his  *' barbed 
ARGUMENTS."  The  authoi  was  ashamed  to  put  his  name  to 
it ;  but  Dr.  Miller  became  father  to  the  offspring,  which  its  own 
parent  would  not  own.  He  is  satisfied,  he  tells  us  in  his  Intro- 
ductory   Essay,  that  the    work    "  may    be    read    with    entire 

CONFIDENCE,    Ax\D    THAT    IT    IS    ADAPTED    TO    DO    MUCH    COOD".  .  .  . 

*'  That  it  is  well  worthy  of  the  careful  perusal  of  all  who  wish  to 
be  able  to  give  '  a  reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  theji,'  aiid 
to  team  their  childreyi  and  others  around  them,  against  those 
^elusions  which  destroy  tht  soul.'^'' 

Do  you  wonder,  sir,  that  the  common  lights  of  Presbyterianism 
aie  destined  to  cut  a  sorry  figure  in  discussing  this  qtiestion,  wl.en 
the  great  luminary  of  their  church  is  found  in  such  Avorks  of 
ignorance  and  absurdity  ;  bestowing  such  recommendations  on 
such  nonsense,  and  blessing  God  that  he  is  to  be  saved  by  ab- 
solute predestination. 

1  have  long  since  answered  the  objection  which  the  gentleman 
brings  forward  again  on  the  subject  of  the  Scripture.  In  my 
last  T  proved  by  facts  unanswerable,  that  in  the  interval  between 
the  invention  of  printing  and  the  invention  of  Protestantism,  the 
Scriptures  were  extensively  circulated  in  the  common  language 
of  the  people.  The  clergy  used  them  in  the  Latin  language,  as 
they  still  do.  The  gentleman  explains  the  forty  Catholic  editions  of 
the  Scriptures  in  Italian,  preceding  the  first  Protestant  version,  by 
supposing  that  they  were  for  "  monks."  This  is  a  mistake. 
The  monks,  unlike  many  of  the  parsons  of  the  present  day,  did  not 
require  that  books  should  be  in  their  "  mother  tongue"  in  order  to 
understand  them.  It  is  to  their  labour  and  learning  that  we  are 
indebted  for  the  preservation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  fragments 
of  literary  or  scientific  works  that  have  come  down  from  antiquity. 
It  was  by  the  labours  of  the  monks  that  they  were  all  saved  fiom 
the  deluge  of  ignorance  and  barbarism  that  swept  in  upon  Europe 
after  the  fall  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

As  to  the  spurious  bull  ascribed  to  Innocent  VIII.,  he  might  as 


260 

well  quote  Dr.  Miller's  History  of  the  "crabs  in  black  velvet," 
or  his  own  aiUhoiity,  to  prove  its  authenticity,  as  the  writers 
whom  he  has  quoted.  They  do  not  touch  the  point.  They 
quote  it,  but  it  does  not  become  the  less  spurious  on  that  account. 

In  his  allusion  to  my  remarks  on  Venice,  the  gentleman  gives 
us  a  new  view  of  liberty.  According  to  him,  it  consists  in  the 
deslrudion  of  monasteries  and  nunneries,  and  the  triumph  of 
anarchy  and  Voltaire  over  the  rights  of  order  and  the  authority  of 
the  pope.  He  admits,  in  fine,  that  he  cannot  prove  his  proposition. 
His  words  are  '■''I  say  not  that  all  Catholics  are  in  doctrine  or 
in  spirit  enemies  to  liberty.'^  He  knows  that  "  in  doctrine*''  all 
Catholics  are  the  same.  And  consequently,  since  he  allows  that 
some  can  be  friends  to  liberty  without  violating-  their  doctrine,  it 
follows  that  all  can  be,  if  they  will ;  and  consequently,  it  follows 
that  the  Catholic  religion  is  not  opposed  to  liberty  in  any  of  its 
doctrines.  Its  doctrines  are  the  same  for  all — for  the  pope  and 
the  peasant,  the  rich  and  the  poor,  the  learned  and  the  illiterate, 
the  priesthood  and  the  people.  The  gentleman  is  disposed  to 
acquit  the  people,  and  fix  the  charge  pn  the  "priesthood."  Hinc 
illse  lachrymse.  But  he  is  confused,  and  it  would  be  wasting  time 
to  follow  him  through  all  his  contradictions,  not  only  of  others 
but  of  himself  also. 

But  I  must  not  be  so  fast.  The  gentleman  to,  "  END  THE 
DISPUTE,"  as  he  tells  us,  comes  out  with  an  argument  from 
Devoti,  §  V.  He  does  not  say  what  volume,  nor  is  it  at  all 
important.  Devoti,  it  appears,  says  "  Peace  having  been  given 
to  Christians,  (in  Constantine's  reign  and  afterwards,)  the  church 
PASSED  JUDGMENT  OH  crimcs,  uot  Only  by  her  oivn  right  {suo 
jure)  but  by  the  laws  of  the  Emperors.^^  "  Here,"  says  Mr. 
Breckinridge,  plainly,  "  she  claimed  the  right  before  the  Em- 
perors conceded  it."  Certainly,  Mr.  B.,  and  she  claims  it  still ; 
and  so  does  your  own  church.  But  what  then?  Why  she  claims 
to  "/>rtss  judgmenV  on  "crimes  against  the  state,  as  well  as 
against  religion."  Certainly,  and  so  she  does  still.  If  a  priest 
or  lay  person  were  to  be  involved  in  treason  against  his  country, 
has  she  not  a  right  to  judge  him,  and  even  punish  him  by  expul- 
sion from  her  communion?  This  she  has  (suojure)  by  her  own 
right.  But  the  rights  which  were  conferred  on  ecclesiastical 
tribunals  by  the  emperors,  were  those  of  penal  chastisement^ 
whose  origin  Devoti  points  out,  as  derived  from  the  state,  and 
not  inherent  in  the  church  (suo  jure)  by  her  own  right.  This, 
therefore,  does  "  end  the  dispute." 

In  my  last  speech  I  convicted  the  gentleman  of  altering  and 
thereby  corrupting  a  citation  from  the  notes  of  the  Rheniish  Testa- 
ment; and  instead  of  apologising  for  such  dishonourable  proceed- 
ing, he  says  I  am  "  catching  at  straws,"  and  wonders  why  I  did 
not  stop  to  expose  all  the  rest  of  his  citations  in  the  same  way. 
I  had  not  time. 


261 

Those  notes  are  censurable  enough  in  themselves;  and  as  such 
were  condemned  from  their  first  appearance,  by  the  Catholics  of 
England  and  Jreland.  But  it  seems  they  were  not  bad  enough 
for  his  purpose,  and  hence  he  counterfeits  tJiem  by  inserting  words 
which  they  do  not  contain,  and  omitting  others  that  are  contained 
in  them.     This  he  admits:   but  he  is  not  ashamed  of  it. 

He  volunteers  to  defend  the  ''AMERICAN  BIBLE  SOCIE- 
TY." I  did  not  attack  it.  I  did  not  say  one  word  against  it.  I 
stated  that  it  had  printed  and  sent  to  South  America,  a  pretended 
Spanish  bible,  with  a  falsehood  stamped  on  its  title-page.  The 
gentleman  does  not,  dare  not,  deny  the  fact.  He  knows  it  is 
true.  And  what  is  his  reply? — that  my  "charge  bears  malice 
and  falsehood  on  its  front."  But  so  long  as  the  fact  is  undenied 
and  undeniable,  his  abuse,  and  the  epithets  in  which  he  expresses 
it,  must  recoil  on  their  source.  The  proceeding  is  a  scandal  to 
public  morals.  They  circulate  what  they  profess  to  believe  a 
CORRUPTED  version  of  the  word  of  God.  They  call  it  on  the 
tiJle-page,  the  BIBLE  OF  THE  BISHOP  OF  SEGOVIA,  and 
they  know  that  they  have  omitted  intentionally,  several  books 
which  that  bible  contains.  Why  is  the  title  preserved?  To  de- 
ceive the  Spaniards,  to  whom  it  is  sent.  Why  are  portions  of  the 
original  suppressed,  whilst  the  title  is  retained?  Ilo protestantise 
the  sacred  word,  and  by  a  clandestine  process,  unworthy  the  Bible 
Society,  to  debauch  the  faith  of  the  Catholics,  whom  they  have 
selected  as  the  victims  of  this  contemptible  artifice.  Why  have 
they  circulated  it  at  all,  if  they  believe  it  to  be  a  corrupted  ver- 
sion? There  is  only  one  possible  answer, — ^^the  assumed  lawful- 
ness of  "  doing  evil  that  good  may  come."  The  proceeding,  I 
say,  claiming  for  its  support  the  name  and  respectability  of  the 
American  Bible  Society,  IS  A  SCANDAL  TO  PUBLIC  MO- 
RALS. I  state  facts.  I  have  no  doubt  but  hundreds  of  indivi- 
duals, of  high  and  honourable  feelings,  will  learn  of  this  proceed- 
ing, with  disgust  and  indignation  at  the  iniquity  which  perpetrated 
it  in  their  name. 

The  gentleman  takes  up  my  admission  that  Catholics  have  per- 
secuted, as  something  highly  serviceable  to  his  cause.  But  has 
he  been  able  to  show,  by  any  doctrine  of  their  religion,  that  they 
ivere  required  to  persecute?  Has  he  been  able  to  show  that  they 
violated  any  doctrine  of  their  religion,  when  they  not  only  did  not 
persecute,  but  granted  equal  civil  and  religious  freedom  to  Protes- 
tants, flying  from  the  persecutions  of  their  fellow  Protestants,  as 
in  Catholic  Poland,  and  in  Catholic  Maryland?  He  has  not,  and 
he  cannot.  Will  he  be  able  to  show  that  Presbyterians  in  power 
ever  granted  such  freedom?  Never,  as  we  shall  see  under  the 
next  question, 

I  asked  him  to  explain  the  equivocation  which  he  ascribed  to 
Luther,  in  making  him  distinguish  between  the  Catholic  Church 
and  some  other  church,  when  he  said,  in  opposition  to  Bellarmine, 


262 

ihat  "  the  cluircii  never  put  a  heretic  to  death."  To  thi?,  he  re- 
plies, that  my  "  pertness  is  too  puerile  to  be  worthy  of  notice." 
The  gentleman  has  frequently  alluded  to  the  temporal  power 
claimed  by  and  attributed  to  popes,  during  the  middle  ages. 

On  this  subject  he  has  only  "  a  little  learning."  It  may  be 
proper  for  me  to  make  a  few  observations  on  it. 

The  Pope,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  religion, 
is  the  supreme  visible  head  of  that  kingdom,  which  is  not  of  this 
world — the  chief  visible  pastor  of  Christ's  universal  fold.  The 
doctrines  of  that  religion  give  him  no  title,  by  virtue  of  his  high 
spiritual  trust,  to  any  civil  power  or  temporal  right  for  the  manage- 
ment of  purely  secular  things.  Therefore,  what  has  been  called 
the  temporal  authority  of  the  Pope,  must  be  traced  to  some  other 
source,  than  that  by  which  he  is  appointed  to  feed  the  sheep  as 
well  as  the  lambs  of  the  Christian  fold. 

THE  POPES — during  the  first  three  hundred  years,  were  dis- 
tinguished, amidst  the  brightness  even  of  those  ages  of  primitive 
Christianity,  for  the  innocence,  holiness,  humility,  and  heroic  for- 
titude of  their  lives.  The  greater  proportion  of  them  sealed  their 
faith  by  martyrdom.  Those  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  century  were 
equally  distinguished  for  their  zeal,  talents,  science  and  laborious 
ministry.  Cotemporary  writers  bear  witness  to  the  correctness 
with  which  those  of  the  seventh  and  eighth  centuries  laboured  to 
stem  the  torrent  of  barbarism,  that  was  threatening  to  inundate  the 
church  ag  well  as  the  empire.  Tn  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries, 
the  reo"ions  of  northern  barbarism  were  invaded  by  the  apostolic 
missionaries,  sent  by  the  popes  to  preach  Christ,  and  establish  the 
gospel  on  the  ruins  of  paganism.  So  far,  enmity  itself  has  been 
unable  either  to  obscure  the  virtues  of  the  men  who  succeeded  in 
the  chair  of  St.  Peter,  or  to  deny  the  salutary  effects  of  their  zeal, 
in  promoting  all  that  was  most  beneficial  for  the  temporal  and 
eternal  interests  of  man.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  ALL  the 
nations  that  have  ever  been  CONVERTED /ro?7i  PAGANISM, 
have  been  converted  to  the  Catholic  religion,  and  by  missionaries 
appointed  by,  or  in  connexion  with,  the  successive  popes,  who 
have  governed  the  church.  Fifteen  hundred  years  of  Christianity 
had  passed  away,  before  the  Protestant  religion  was  invented  — 
breaking  communion  with  the  pope  and  the  church — and  three 
hundred  years  since;  and  it  is  equally  remarkable  that  Protestants 
have  failed  in  their  attempts  to  convert  pagans.  They  seduced 
Catholics,  but  they  have  failed  among  the  heathens.  From  the 
tenth  to  the  fifteenth  century,  the  state  of  society  and  civil  govern- 
ment in  Europe  was  such,  as  it  is  impossible  for  us,  at  this  day, 
to  conceive  or  realise,  even  in  imagination.  The  military  spirit 
that  prevailed — the  feebleness  of  law — the  unsettled  order  of 
claims  to  political  power — the  strifes  and  rivalships, — all  pre- 
sented an  ocean  in  which  were  rocks  and  whirlpools,  shoals  and 
tempests,  and  through  which  the. popes  as  pilots  of  divine  appoint- 
ment had  to  steer  the  vessel  of  the  church. 


263 
• 

It  was  during  this  period  that  occurred  those  events  which  fur- 
nish half-educated  Protestant  writers  with  the  everlasting  theme 
of  crimination  against  the  popes.  Those  events,  to  be  judged 
with  justice,  ought  to  l>e  judged  in  connexion  with  the  character 
of  the  agej  customs  of  the  nations,  and  the  other  specific  circum- 
stances in  which  they  occurred.  For  their  own  temporal  power, 
the  popes  enjoy  it  by  as  ancient  and  as  just  a  title  as  any  govern- 
ment in  Europe  or  America.  When  the  emperors  were  busied 
in  the  east,  and  unable  to  protect  the  states  of  Italy,  the  pope  be- 
came, by  the  choice  of  the  people,  sovereign  of  the  Exarchate  of 
Ravenna;  and  their  title  is  confirmed  by  a  prescription  of  eleven 
hundred  years.  It  matters  not  whether  that  authority  was  the 
gift  of  Pepin,  after  the  expulsion  of  the  Lombards,  or  not.  The 
pope  became  the  temporal  ruler  de  facto,  and  his  successors,  with 
scarcely  any  additioh  or  diminution  of  their  territory,  have  re- 
mained so  to  this  day. 

But  they  are  charged  with  claiming  a  right  to  dispose  of  the 
crowns  of  other  nations,  and  releasing  their  subjects  from  their 
oaths  of  fidelity.  Some  few  have,  indeed,  cherished  and  pro- 
claimed this  pretension.  But  who  is  the  prince  that  was  actually 
DEPOSED  by  any  pope?  You  will  look  for  his  name  in  history; 
and  you  vvill  not  find  it.  The  Presbyterians  deposed  four  go- 
vernments, and  brought  two  crowned  heads  to  the  block,  in 
less  than  a  century.  The  popes  never  so  much  as  one.  Who  is 
the  prince  on  whom  the  popes  conferred  a  crown  and  dominions, 
which  he  did  not  possess  before?  Not  one.  These  are  i\\e  facts 
of  the  case,  and  show  the  value  of  the  gentleman's  learning  and 
industry,  as  exhibited  on  this  subject  in  his  last  speech. 

The  pope  did  not  give  America  to  Spain,  and  much  less  did  he 
give  it  before  it  was  discovered.  The  countries  discovered  in 
these  seas  by  Spanish  and  Portuguese  navigators,  were  taken  pos- 
sessioh  of  in  the  name  of  the  two  governments  respectively ;  and 
when  a  dispute  arose  about  the  boundaries,  the  Pope  Alexander 
VI.  was  appealed  to  as  arbiter;  it  was  in  this  capacity  that  he 
gave  those  governments  what  they  possessed  already. 

The  popes  in  some  cases,  as  that  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  did  af- 
fect to  release  subjects  from  their  allegiance.  This  was  exercising 
an  assumed  power  for  an  unlawful  end.  It  was  an  abuse,  conse- 
quently. And  the  Catholics  of  England  and  Ireland  condemned 
it,  and  proved  that  whilst  they  were  ready  to  suffer  persecution  for 
conscience'  sake  at  the  hands  of  Elizabeth,  they  were  also  ready  to 
fight  in  defence  of  her  rights,  notwithstanding  the  pretended  re- 
lease from  their  fealty,  and  her  excommunication.  Even  Hume, 
the  habitual  reviler  of  the  Catholic  religion,  shows  how  distin- 
guished was  the  loyalty  of  the  Catholics  of  England  against  the 
pretensions  of  Philip.  But  facts  that  arc  palpable,  are  the  best 
test  to  decide.  Presbyterians  overthrew  four  governments,  and 
brought  two  sovereigns  to  the  block  in  less  than  a  century:  and 


264 

the  Popes  have  never  overturned  so  much  as  one.  The  gentle- 
man has  copied  an  index  in  his  catalogue  of  popes  and  kings,  and 
he  very  modestly  requires  of  me  to  write  out  the  history. 

Nearly  the  whole  of  his  speech  is  made  of  assertions,  which  he 
calls  history.  From  whom  he  copied  the  long  extract  of  borrowed 
assertion,  with  which  he  fills  up,  it  is  not  worth  while  to  enquire. 
It  is  assertion,  mere  assertion,  and  nothing  else.  Its  violence  be- 
trays its  origin.  Copied,  no  doubt,  from  some  writer  as  fanatical 
and  as  ill-informed  as  the  gentleman  himself  It  is  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  a  fiery,  foolish  rhapsody,  which  a  man  who  pretends 
to  give  proof  and  reason,  instead  oi  declamation  and  abuse,  would 
not  offer  to  an  assembly  whose  intellect  he  did  not  despise.  It 
was  not  worthy  of  the  gentleman  to  undergo  the  humiliation  of 
borrowing  such  gratuitous  Abuse  from  another;  whereas  in  that 
department,  which  requires  no  proof,  he  is  known  to  be  equal  to 
the  sublimest  originality. 

About  the  pope  calling  himself  God,  and  some  other  points  in 
which  the  gentleman  has  borne  false  witness  against  his  neigh- 
bour, I  shall  sum  up  the  evidences  presently.  In  written  contro- 
versy, it  is  easy  for  one  who  is  not  restrained  by  the  "  belief  in 
good  works,"  to  give  such  a  partial  colouring  to  isolated  facts,  as 
to  pervert  them  from  the  truth  of  history.  But  here,  he  cannot 
escape  detection.  I  have  collected  a  number  of  the  gentleman's 
calumnies  from  the  written  controversy,  with  the  very  books  to 
which  he  referred  for  their  proof.  These  books,  the  original 
works,  are  now  marked  at  the  place  of  each  reference,  AND  ON 
THE  TABLE  BEFORE  US.  The  gentleman  has  an  oppor- 
tunity to  sustain  his  assertions,  in  presence  of  this  meeting,  and 
if  he  does  not,  the  audience  will  not  be  slow  to  understand  the 
reason. 

It  is  a  painful  process,  sir,  to  have  to  contend  with  a  man 
against  whom  the  interests  of  truth,  the  rights  of  reputation,  the 
protection  of  innocence,  accused  and  villified,  oblige  you  to  prove, 
face  to  face,  the  charge  of  calumny.  I  charge  the  gentleman 
with  calumny:  not  in  his  absence,  but  in  his  presence;  and  I 
have  brought  to  this  meeting  the  original  works,  said  to  contain 
the  statements  which  he  has  ascribed  to  them,  but  which  thy  do 
not  contain.  Yes,  sir,  it  is  painful  to  be  obliged  to  undertake  such 
a  work.  But  it  is  the  glory  of  the  Catholic  religion,*  that  in  order 
to  prove  it  guilty  of  the  charges  that  sectarian  zeal  has  preferred 
against  it,  recourse  must  be  had  to  artifice,  perversion  of  authori- 
ties, imputation  of  doctrines  which  Catholics  disclaim,  and  in 
many  instances  abhor.  Recourse  must  be  had  to  every  species  of 
refined  speculation,  misrepresentation,  and,  with  a  sense  of  humi- 
liation for  human  nature,  I  must  add,  falsehood.  I  shall  now  give 
a  list  of  those  particular  calumnies,  which  I  have  selected,  and  if 
the  gentleman  will  venture  to  deny  the  truth  of  my  statements, 

HERE    ARE    ALL    THE    BOOKS,  THE    PAGES,  AND    I'ASSAGES    MARKED. 


265 

which  will  decide  in  presence  of  this  meeting  who  speaks  the 
truth,  and  who  has  spoken  or  written  the  untruth  in  the  matter. 
I  request  the  gentleman  to  pay  attention,  and  not  flinch  from  the 
ordeal. 

Be  it  known  then,  to  all  posterity,  that,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1835,  in  the  month  of  February,  in  an  Oral  Discussion  between  the 
Rev.  John  Breckinridge  and  the  Rev.  John  Hughes,  in  the  city 
of  Philadelphia,  the  following  CALUMNIES  against  the  holy 
Catholic  religion  have  been  refuted  by  a  reference  to  original  do- 
cuments. 

FIRST  CALUMNY.  **  That  according  to  the  Council  of 
Constance,  Catholics  are  not  bound  to  keep  faith  with  heretics.'" 
Whereas,  this  has  been  stated  by  nearly  all  Protestant  controver- 
sial writers,  and  believed  by  their  unsuspecting  followers,  and 
lastly  has  been  referred  to,  as  a  settled  pointy  by  the  Rev.  John 
Breckinridge  in  his  first  letter  of  the  written  Controversy  with  said 
Rev.  John  Hughes;  (1)  and  whereas,  the  truth  is,  that  no  such 
doctrine  is  contained  in  the  acts  of  said  Council,  now  open  before 
us,  therefore,  the  charge  is  a  CALUMNY;  false  in  itself,  and 
injurious  to  the  rights  of  Catholics. 

SECOND  CALUMNY.  "  That  according  to  the  Sixteenth 
canon  of  the  Third  Council  of  Lateran,  an  oath  contrary  to  eccle- 
siastical utility  is  perjury,  not  on  oath."  (2)  And  whereas,  the  said 
canon,  NOW  PRODUCED  IN  THE  ORIGINAL,  contains  no 
such  doctrine,  therefore,  the  charge  is  false  and  injurious,  as 
above. 

THIRD  CALUMNY.  "  That  the  Fourth  Council  of  Lateran, 
A.  D.  1215,  Third  canon,  freed  the  subjects  of  such  soverecgns 
as  embraced  heresy,  from  their  fealty  ;"  (3)  whereas,  the  ORIGI- 
NAL CANON  NOW  PRODUCED,  contains  no  such  doctrine, 
therefore,  the  charge  is  again  FALSE  and  INJURIOUS,  as  be- 
fore. 

FOURTH  CALUMNY.  That,  "  if  the  Pope  should  err  in  com- 
manding vices,  and  prohibiting  virtues,  the  church  would  be 
bound  to  believe  vices  to  be  virtues,  and  virtues  to  be  vices."  And 
whereas,  Bellarmine  has  been  referred  to,  as  maintaining  this  doc- 
trine, (4)  and  whereas,  Bellarmine  teaches  no  such  doctrine,  but 
the  reverse,  therefore,  the  charge  is  FALSE  and  INJURIOUS 
to  Catholics.  Bellarmine's  work,  with  the  passage  marked,  is  now 
on  the  table  before  us. 

FIFTH  CALUMNY.  "  That  the  Catholics  have  suppressed 
in  the  catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  that  part  of  the  first 
commandment  which  forbids  idolatry."  (5)  And  whereas  he  (Mr. 
Breckinridge)  persisted  in  this  calumny,  and  attempted  to  prove  it 

(1)  Johnson's  edition,  p.  20.  (2)  Mr.  Breckinridge,  same  page. 

(3)  Mr.  Breckinridge,  same  page.       (4)  Mr.  Breekinridge,  ibid  p.  19. 
(5)  Mr.  Breckinridge,  ibid,  passim. 
34 


266 

(even  after  six  different  editions  had  been  shown  to  him,)  by  referring 
to  a  copy  which  was  in  New  York,  and  whereas,  he  has  exhibited 
that  copy  to  this  assennbly  as  proof  in  his  favour,  and  whereas, 
THAT  COPY  CONTAINS  IT,  like  all  the  others,  therefore,  the  charge 
js  cruelly  FALSE  and  INJURIOUS. 

SIXTH  CALUMNY.  "That  there  is  di.  dishonest  difference 
in  the  sense  of  two  translations  of  the  Catechism  of  the  Council 
of  Trent,  in  certain  particular  passages."  And  whereas,  the  pre- 
tended difference  does  not  exist  in  the  works  referred  to,  but  was 
predicated  on  what  turns  out  to  be  a  falsijication  of  the  text,  by 
making  difull  stop  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence,  and  otherwise  mu- 
tilating ;  therefore,  the  charge  is  FALSE  and  INJURIOUS  as 
above.  And  since  Mr.  Breckinridge  disclaims  having  copied 
from  the  **  Text-book  of  Popery,"  it  remains  for  him  to  explain, 
1st.  How  he  came  ^o  mutilate  it  at  all?  And  2d,  How  he  came 
to  mutilate  word  for  word^  as  was  done  in  the  above  "  text-book^'  of 
falsehoods. 

SEVENTH  CALUMNY.  "  That  Catholics  call  the  Pope  God." 
As  proof  of  this,  Mr.  Breckinridge  (6)  quoted  the  epistle  of  Pope 
Nicholas  to  the  Emperor  Michael,  in  the  Corpus  juris  Canonici ; 
and  whereas,  said  epistle  now  produced  in  the  original,  contains 
no  .such  proposition;  therefore  the  charge  is  FALSE  and  INJU- 
RIOUS to  Catholics,  and  shows  great  STUPIDITY  in  the  minds 
of  those  who  make  or  believe  it. 

EIGHTH  CALUMNY.  ''That  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic 
Church  are  hostile  to  civil  and  religious  liberty."  In  proof  of  this 
calumny,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Breckinridge  cited  the  Twenty-seventh 
canon  of  the  Third  Council  of  Lateran,  A.  D.  1179,  against  the 
Albigenses.  (7)  And  whereas,  said  canon  is  no  part  of  the  Catho- 
lic religion,  but  a  special  regulation  for  a  particular  case,  made  in 
concurrence  with  the  civil  power  of  the  states  from  which  alone  it 
could  derive  any  authority  ;  and  whereas,  the  said  Mr.  Breckin- 
ridge in  quoting  the  said  canon,  suppressed  the  section  which 
enumerates  the  crimes  of  the  sects  referred  to,  and  thereby  de- 
ceives his  readers,  making  it  appear,  that  the  punishment  was  for 
their  speculative  errors  in  doctrine,  and  not  for  their  crimes  against 
society  and  the  state;  therefore,  the  charge  is  FALSE  and  INJU- 
RIOUS to  Catholics.  And  whereas,  the  said  Mr.  Breckinridge 
alleges  that  he  copied  this  suppression  of  the  truth,  without  being 
aware  of  it,  from  Faber;  and  whereas,  we  do  not  know  from 
whom  Faber  copied  ;  and  whereas,  the  greater  the  multiplication 
of  copyists  and  copies,  the  greater  the  extent  of  injury  done  to 
Catholics ;  and  whereas,  it  is  a  divine  trait  of  the  religion  of  Christ, 
that  it  OBLIGES  us  to  repair  an  injury  even  to  a  pagan,  when  it  is  in 
our  power  ;  therefore,  it  would  refresh  the  face  of  Christianity,  if 
Mr.  Breckinridge  would  undeceive  the  public  with  the  same  pen 

(G)  Controversy,  p.  86.  (7)  Ibid,  p.  175. 


267 

which  contributed  to  lead  that  public  astray.  Faber  will  have  to 
see  to  it  in  the  next  world^  if  not  in  this. 

NINTH  CALUMNY.  "  That  the  Pope  claims  the  right  of  ex- 
terminating  heretics."  In  proof  of  this,  tiic  said  Rev.  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge quoted  (8)  a  supposed  Bull  of  Innocent  VIII.  against 
the  Waldenses  ;  and  whereas,  said  bull,  even  if  genuine,  is  no  part 
of  Catholic  doctrine;  and  whereas,  the  gentleman  who  quoted 
it,  had  no  certainty  of  its  existence,  and  whereas,  it  is  not  to  be 
found  in  the  collection  of  bulls,  in  which  the  worst,  as  well  as  the 
best,  are  preserved,  nor  among  the  archives  in  Rome,  which  have 
been  particularly  examined;  therefore,  the  charge,  so  far  as  it  de- 
pends on  this  spurious  document,  is  equally  FALSE  and  INJU- 
RIOUS to  the  rights  of  Catholics. 

TENTH  CALUMNY.  "  That  according  to  the  Third  Canon 
of  the  Fourth  Council  of  Lateran,  sovereigns  may  be  deposed, 
and  their  subjects  released  from  their  allegiance,  when  they  become 
heretics;  and  that  they  are  to  be  excommunicated  when  they  neg- 
lect to  exterminate  heretics  from  their  lands."  In  proof  of  this, 
the  said  Rev.  John  Breckinridge  quoted  a  mangled  extract  of  said 
Canon.  (9)  And  whereas,  said  Canon  is  no  part  of  Catholic  doc- 
trine, except  in  so  far  as  it  condemns  all  heresies  in  the  abstract ; 
and  whereas,  it  expressly  refers  to  those  particular  heretics  ivhose 
crimes,  growing  out  of  their  errors-,  had  threatened  the  welfare 
of  the  state  and  of  society,  as  appears  by  the  original  documents 
NOW  BEFORE  US  ;  and  whereas,  it  refers  to  inferior  lords  who  held 
their  territory  and  power  by  the  conditions  of  feudal  tenure,  and 
expressly  excepts  the  rights  of  the  sovereign  or  principal  lord,  who 
held  by  what  was  termed  divine  right ;  and  whereas,  it  was  enacted 
with  the  concurrence,  probably  at  the  request,  of  all  the  sovereigns 
of  Europe,  and  depended  on  them  for  its  authority  ;  and  whereas, 
it  is  denied  by  learned  Protestant  authors,  that  said  Canon  was 
passed  in  the  Council  ;  (10)  and  whereas,  admitting  it  to  be  genu- 
ine, it  does  not  prove  the  accusation  ;  therefore  the  charge  is 
equally  FALSE  and  INJURIOUS. 

And  whereas,  the  said  Mr.  Breckinridge  in  reply  to  the  question, 
whether  the  quotation  was  literal  and  continuous,  answered  un- 
hesitatingly, "that  it  was;"  that  "he  had  the  original  before 
him;  that  *' he  copied  from  Caranza  ;"  that  his  opponent  might 
"  compare  his  translation  with  the  original ;"  that  he  considered 
the  question  an  indignity  offered  to  his  character,  &lc.  And 
whereas,  his  opponent  has  compared,  and  has  the  origij/al  and 
TRANSLATION  HERE  PRESENT,  and  finds  that  the  said  translation  is 
neither  "  continuous''  nor  "  literal:'' — because,  1.  Whole  senten- 
ces are  left  out,  without  the  usual  marks  to  indicate  the  omission. 
2.  Other  sentences  are  begun  or  broke  off  in  the  middle.     3.  The 

(8)  Controversy,  p.  174.  (9)  Ibid,  p.  89. 

(10)  CoUier's  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  i.p.  424. 


268 

worrl  "  praf^seiitibiis"  is  omitted,  as  an  important  qualification.  4. 
The  last  paragraph  is  7iot  hi  the  original,  and  we  must  be  inform- 
ed wliere  the  gentleman  found  it.  Hence,  the  following  questions 
are  to  be  answered.  I.  Did  he  quote  from  Caranza?  If  hedid, 
why  did  he  mangle  his  authority  in  order  to  make  out  his 
proof?  If  he  did  not,  why  did  he  say  that  he  did?  2.  Had  he 
room  for  the  whole  Canon  as  it  is  abridged  in  Caranza?  If  he 
had,  why  did  he  not  give  all  ?  If  he  hadnot,  as  he  says,  why  did 
he  introduce  a  passage  which  is  not  in  Caranza  at  all?  3.  Did 
he  hioiv  how  much  his  translation  differed  from  Caranza?  If  he 
did,  why  did  he  say  that  it  was  "  continuous  ?"  If  he  did  not,  why 
did  he  say  that  he  had  the  original  before  him  ?  Challenge  a 
comparison  of  his  translation  with  the  original,  and  affect  to  be 
offended  at  the  intimation  of  a  doubt,  which  facts  have  proven  to 
be  but  too  well  founded? 

Here  are  the  charges,  and  here  are  the  witnesses,  the  original 
works,  to  prove  them.  Will  the  gentleman  vindicate  himself  now, 
or  will  he  wait  till  the  witnesses  d^xe  removed  ?  \i  I  were  in  his 
situation,  I  know  what  I  should  do.  1  should  appeal  to  the  wit- 
nesses to  prove  my  innocence,  and  i^  their  testimony  condemned 
me,  I  should  apologise  to  my  Catholic  fellow-citizens  for  the  injury 
I  had  done  them. 

But  the  fact  is,  that  the  gentleman,  hoping  to  be  saved  by  the 
patent-right  of  predestination,  which  God  was  pleased  to  bestow 
on  Calvin  and  his  followers,  seems  to  make  a  jest  of  truth  and 
literary  honesty.  After  having  acknowledged  the  error  of  his  ci- 
tation of  one  of  the  notes  appended  to  the  text  of  the  Rhemish 
testament,  he  adds,  "  Yet  prai/,  Mr.  Hughes^  why  pass  over  all 
the  other  citations  in  silence.  One  of  them  says,  '  The  zeal  of 
Catholic  men  ought  to  he  so  great  towards  all  heretics,  and  their 
doctrines,  that  they  should  give  them  the  anathema,  though  they  are 
never  so  dear  to  them ;  so  as  not  even  to  spare  their  own  parents."* 
Am  I  right  in  this  citation?"  Why,  Mr.  Breckinridge,  you  are 
wrong.  If  you  ever  saw  the  text,  you  must  know  that  you  are 
wrong.  The  annotators  were  writing  on  the  8th  verse  of  the  1st 
chapter  to  the  Galatians,  where  the  apostle  gives  the  *'  anathema" 
to  even  an  angel  who  should  preach  another  Gospel,  besides  that 
which  he  had  preached.  On  this,  after  giving  the  explanation  St. 
Vincent  Lerins  and  St.  Augustine,  they  conclude  in  these  tvords  : 
'•  Lastly,  Hierome  iiseth  this  place,  wherein  the  apostle  giveth 
the  curse  or  anathema  to  cdl  false  teachers.,  not  once  hut  twice, 
to  prove  that  the  zeal  of  Catholic  men  ought  to  he  so  great  to- 
wards all  heretics  and  their  doctrines,  that  they  should  give  them, 
the  anathema,  though  never  so  dear  to  them.  In  which  case,  saith 
this  holy  doctor,  I  woidd  not  spare  mine  own  parents.'*''  This  is 
the  true  citation.  Proving  the  gentleman  guilty  of  1st.  Garbling, 
by  beginning  in  the  middle  of  the  sentence,  and  altering  the 
PUNCTUATION.    2d.  Of  Suppressing  the  words  "  in  which  case  saith 


269 

that  holy  doctor,  <^c."  3d.  Of  foisting  into  the  text  words  which 
are  not  in  il,  viz.  *'  so  as  not  even  to  spare,  Sfc."  And  yet  with 
a  boldness  which  indicates  nerves  of  iron,  he  asks  in  reference 
to  this  citation—-  PRAY,  MR.  HUGHES,  AM  I  RIGHT,  OR 
AM  I  WRONG?"  Let  the  public  judge.  I  have  been  obliged 
to  expose  him  in  this  way  from  the  beginning.  During  the  writ- 
ten controversy  he  gave  a  quotation  from  Baronius,  composed  of 
only  a  few  lines  ;  but  what  is  its  history  ?  He  gave  it  as  one  un- 
broken passage,  and  on  examining  Baronius,  it  was  found  to  be 
made  up  of  "  scraps"  taken  from  four  different  paragraphs  of  a 
page,  in  two  columns,  folio.  The  first  scrap  was  from  the  5th 
paragraph,  the  second  from  the  6th,  the  third  scrap  from  the  5th 
again,  the  fourth  scrap  from  the  4th  paragraph,  the  fifth  scrap  from 
the  5th  again,  and  the  sixth  scrap  from  the  7th  paragraph.  Of 
what  use  is  it,  therefore,  to  contend  with  a  man,  who,  to  supply 
the  absence  of  truth  in  the  support  of  a  bad  cause,  is  obliged  to 
have  recourse  to  these  means  1 

I  have  now  examined  the  evidence  which  he  has  brought  for- 
ward, to  show  that  the  catholic  religion  contains  doctrines  opposed 
to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  I  believe  that  no  man  who  un- 
derstands what  it  is  TO  PROVE  A  PROPOSITION  will  risk  his 
reputation  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  gentleman  has  not  signally  and 
triumphantly  FAILED.  He  has  trifled  with  truth.  He  has  per- 
verted authors,  and  authorities.  He  has  corrupted  citations.  He 
has  exposed  himself,  and  done  no  credit  to  the  cause  which  he 
had  thrust  himself  forward  to  maintain.  He  has  told  us  what 
Bellarmine  and  Devoti  said,  and  yet  admitting,  for  argument  sake 
that  he  has  told  us  correctly,  still  he  has  signally  and  triumphantly 
FAILED,  whenever  he  attempted  to  show  that  the  sayings  of 
these  individuals,  and  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  religion  are 
the  same  thing.  He  has  stated  facts  of  history,  and  by  reasoning 
backwards,  he  has  inferred  that  they  must  be  sanctioned  by  doc- 
trine ;  as  if  the  transgressions  of  our  citizens  were  ei  proof  thsit 
the  American  Constitution  sanctions  immorality.  He  has  quoted 
Canon  law,  and  whilst  he  shows  in  every  sentence  that  he  does 
not  understand  what  it  means,  he  seems  to  expect  that  I  should 
supply  the  instruction  of  which  he  is  deficient.  Canon  signifies  a 
rule  or  regulation.  Now  every  subject,  to  which  a  rule  can  be 
applied,  may  be  said  to  fall  under  the  operation  of  a  canon.  Hence 
there  are  CANONS  OF  DOCTRINE  in  the  Catholic  religion, 
which  are  the  same  in  all  ages  and  countries,  of  the  church 
AND  of  the  world.  Thcsc  canons  of  doctrine  are  denned  some- 
times by  General  Councils,  sometimes  in  the  Bulls  of  Popes.  It 
was  in  these  doctrinal  canons  that  the  gentleman  had  bound  him- 
self to  find  those  "  tenets  of  faith  or  morals"  in  the  Catholic  re- 
ligion, which  were  supposed  to  be  hostile  to  civil  and  religious 
liberty.  Did  he  find  them  1  Not  one.  They  do  not  exist.  But 
there  have    been   other   canons,  of  which   doctrine  was  not  the 


270 

object.  They  were  lemporary  laws  made  for  particular  exigen- 
ces, and  »s  these  were  subject  to  the  vicissitudes  of  time  and 
place,  so  the  rules  or  canons  to  which  they  gave  rise  were  neces- 
sarily various,  different,  and  often  contradictory.  They  are  like  a 
COLLECTION  OF  CIVIL  STATUTES  Under  the  Constitution  of  Eng- 
la7id;  and  it  would  be  just  as  absurd  to  say  that  the  inhabitants  of 
Great  Britain  are  obliged  to  observe  all  the  statutes  that  ever 
WERE  PASSED  from  the  foundation  of  the  empire,  as  to  say  that 
Catholics  are  bound  by  what  was,  at  one  period,  or  in  other  coun- 
tries. Canon  law,  but  is  so  no  more,  or  is  so,  but  in  other  coun- 
tries. Most  of  those  canons  have  become,  like  other  laws,  obso- 
lete. They  were,  but  are  not  now.  They  are  not  even  universal 
laws  of  the  church  ;  much  less,  DOCTRINES  ;  which  are  con- 
fined to  those  tenets  of  faith  and  morals  that  Catholics  believe  to 
have  been  revealed  by  Almighty  God.  Where  they  existed,  they 
were  incorporated  into  the  civil  code,  and  formed  part  of  the  law 
of  the  land.  Neither  was  this  regulation,  in  those  times,  deemed 
an  invasion  of  either  civil  or  religious  liberty,  in  as  much  as  the 
Catholic  religion  was  the  religion  of  the  people  and  rulers  as  well 
as  of  the  popes  and  bishops. 

From  these,  the  gentleman  would  prove  doctrine.  They  7iever 
were  doctrine  ;  and  wherever  they  affected  the  external  relations 
of  men,  they  have  become  obsolete,-except  in  those  countries  in 
which  they  still  remain  incorporated  in  the  civil  code  as  laws  of 
the  land.  Consequently  in  adducing  these  as  evidence  of  doc- 
trine, he  signally  and  triumphantly  FAILED. 

He  spoke  of  the  INaUISITION.  I  have  proved  that  every 
denomination  has  all  of  the  Inquisition,  for  which  the  Catholic  re- 
ligion is  responsible;  viz.  the  right  to  hunt  out  heresy,  and  expel 
the  obstinate  heretics;  and  that  no  denomination  exercises  this 
right,  with  more  rigour  and  less  mercy  than  the  Presbyterian 
would-be  orthodox,  as  Mr.  Barnes  can  testify.  But  as  for  the 
penal  portion  of  that  tribunal,  it  belonged  to  the  civil  govern- 
ments, and  was  used  by  them  as  apolitical  engine.  To  the  facts 
by  which  this  distinction  is  established,  the  gentleman  has  been 
utterly  unable  to  reply. 

He  spoke  of  the  CRUSADES.  Mr.  James,  who  has  studied 
the  question,  and  written  upon  it,  and  who  being  a  Protestant, 
cannot  be  suspected  of  partiality,  has  decided  that  they  "  were  as 
just  as  any  wars  that  ever  were  undertaken."  Whether  his 
opinion,  or  that  of  Mr.  Breckinridge  carries  more  weight,  I  sliall 
not  pretend  to  decide.  At  all  events,  they  have  no  more  to  do 
with  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  religion,  than  the  English  wars 
have  to  do  with  the  thirty-nine  articles. 

He  spoke  of  the  MASSACRE  OF  ST.  BARTHOLOMEW. 
He  did  not,  however,  relate  the  facts  connected  with  it,  or  rather 
antecedent  to  it.  The  followers  of  Calvin's  religion  had  attempt- 
ed to  dethrone  their  king,  and  put  a  successor  of  their  own  creed 


271 

on  the  throne.  For  this  they  had  invited  foreigners  to  aid  them 
in  their  war  against  their  country.  They  had  assassinated  the 
Duke  de  Guise;  sacked  and  pillaged  hundreds  of  towns;  massacred 
thousands  of  their  countrymen;  and  spread  desolation  and  blood- 
shed wherever  they  went.  On  the  occasion  of  the  St.  Bartholo- 
mew, it  was  maintained  by  the  French  court,  afterwards,  that  they 
had  formed  a  plot,  to  get  possession  of  the  young  king,  and  thus 
accomplish  their  object  by  stratagem.  Whether  they  ha-d  or  not, 
is  now  not  clear;  they  were  known  to  be  capable  of  it.  But 
THIS  was  the  plea  on  which  the  court  attempted  to  justify  the  hor- 
rid crime,  by  which  it  escaped  the  real  or  pretended  conspiracy  of 
the  Calvinists.  This  is  notorious  matter  of  history;  and  those 
who  understand  it  otherwise,  are  like  the  gentleman,  under  the 
dangerous  influence  of  "  a  little  learning." 

On  the  civil  wars  ih  Ireland,  I  advise  the  gentleman  to  read 
Mr.  Carey's  erudite  and  unanswerable  work,  the  VINDICI-^ 
HIBERNICJj].  But  all  these  matters  are  unavailing  for  the 
purpose  in  hand,  which  is  to  show  that  there  are  DOCTRINES, 
TENETS  OF  FAITH,  AND  MORALS,  in  the  Catholic 
RELIGION,  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty.  He  has  signally 
and  triumphantly — FAILED,  in  this;  whatever  else  he  may  have 
done. 

And  now  having  seen  that  every  attempt  to  prove  the  affirma- 
tive of  this  question  has  been  a  failure,  I  shall  try  whether, 
difficult  as  is  the  proof  of  a  negative,  I  cannot  establish  FACTS 
from  which  it  will  appear  clearly  and  conclusively,  that  there  is 
no  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  religion  opposed  to  civil  or  religious 
liberty. 

FIRST  FACT.  That  the  Catholic  Church  teaches,  and  has 
always  taught,  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  not  of  this  world. 
For  proof  of  this,  we  have  the  testimony  of  popes  and  fathers,  all 
agreeing  that  religion  cannot  be  enforced  by  violence,  nor  defend- 
ed, unless  by  patience.  See  St.  Ireneus  (10),  St.  Justin  (11), 
Theophilus  Alexandrinus  (12),  Eusebius  (13),  Tertullian  in  his 
Apology  (14).  He  says  in  his  book  ad  Scapulam  (15),  speaking 
of  the  Christians — *'  We  loorship  the  emperor  as  it  befits  him,  and 
as  it  is  lawful  for  us,  to  wit,  as  a  man  next  to  God,  dependent  for 
what  he  possesses  on  God,  and  inferior  only  to  him."  St. 
Optatus  maintains  the  same  doctrine  (16).  Also  Osius  of  Cor- 
dova, cited  by  Athanasius  (17).  St.  Augustine  (18)  says,  "We 
do  not  assign  the  ijight  of  giving  kingdoms  or  empires  except  to 
the  true  God."  The  doctrine  of  Origen  (19),  and  in  short,  of  all 
the  fathers  that  have  ever  written  on  the' subject  is  the  *'  UNAN- 

(10)  Lib.  5,  chap.  xxiv.  (15)  Chap.  ii. 

(11)  Apol.  2.  (J 6)  Lib.  3,  Cont.  Parni. 

(12)  Lib.  1,  ad  Autilogiuni.  (17)  Tom.  I,  p.  371. 

(13)  Lib.  7,  chap.  x.  (18)  Lib.  4,  de  Civit  Dei,  c.  xxxiii. 

(14)  Chap  XXX.  (19)  Tom.  II,  p.  118. 


272 

IMOUS  CONSENT,"  that  the  civil  powers  of  the  world,  and  the 
spiritual  poivers  of  the  church,  are  both  original  in  their  source, 
and  mutually  independent  of  each  other.  If  individual  popes,  or 
individual  writers  have  claimed,  for  popes,  the  right  to  dispose  of 
kingdoms,  it  was  on  some  other  ground  of  right,  besides  any 
doctrine  of  the  church  : — some  human  title,  or  some  text  of  Scrip- 
ture, employed  on  the  hazard  of  "  private  interpretation,"  which 
is  contrary  to  the  rule  of  determining  doctrine  in  the  church. 

SECOND  FACT.  That  Catholic  nations  invariably  resisted, 
and  that  without  even  the  charge  of  having  violated  any  doctine 
of  their  religion,  the  attempts  of  popes  to  dispose  of  their  civil 
sovereignty.  And  it  does  not  appear  that  the  popes  have  actually 
ever  succeeded  in  deposing  a  sovereign,  or  bestowing  a  crown. 

THIRD  FACT.  That  before  Luther  and  Protestantism  were 
heard  of,  crowds  of  Republics  had  flourished  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Catholic  religion,  and  public  liberty.  VENICE  rose  up 
from  the  ocean,  with  all  her  republican  glory  round  about  her, 
and  for  five  hundred  years  remained  a  lofty  democratic  govern- 
ment. Genoa,  Florence,  and  other  free  states,  are  proof  that 
liberty  and  Catholicity  are  perfectly  congenial,  notwithstanding 
the  infinite  ignorance  that  asserts  the  contrary.  Even  Spain  had 
its  Catholic  Cortes,  a  free  assembly,  which  imposed  upon  the 
monarch  an  oath,  in  which  they  told  him,  that  they  were  indivi- 
dually as  good,  and,  taken  altogether,  far  better  than  himself,  and 
that  his  power  was  derived  from  the  people.  This  was  before 
what  is  called  the  Protestant  reformation,  and  it  was  the  excesses 
of  that  era,  that  frightened  Spain  into  a  despotism — in  self-de- 

FOURTH  FACT.  That  the  Catholics  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  have  disclaimed  all  right  of  the  Pope  or  cardinals  to  civil 
or  temporal  jurisdiction  in  the  Britjsh  dominions.  This  they  have 
not  ceased  to  do  since  the  pretended  Reformation^  and  discl-ain)ed 
it  ON  OATH,  as  a  calumny  imputed  by  their  oppressors,  and  7iot 
contained  in  the' doctrines  of  the  Catholic  religion.  During  most 
of  the  last  300  years  since  the  importation  of  Protestantism,  the 
Catholics,  who  have  cgntinued  to  disclaim  this  calumny  under  the 
solemnity  of  an  oath,  have  constituted  one  fourth,  and  at  present 
constitute  one  third,  of  the  entire  population  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland.  In  this,  no  portion  of  their  fellow-Catholics  throughout 
the  world,  ever  accused  them  of  denying  a  doctrine  or  prin- 
ciple OF  FAITH, 

FIFTH  FACT.  That  in  1791,  the  following  questions,  at 
the  instance  of  Mr.  Pitt,  then  Minister  of  State,  were  sent  to  the 
foreign  universities  in  France  and  Spain,  and  were  answered  una- 
nimously, as  follows  : —  (1 ) 

(1)  See  Butler's  Book  of  the  Church. 


273 

*'  1.  Has  the  Pope  or  cardinals,  or  any  body  of  men,  or  any 
individual  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  any  civil  authority,  power, 
JURISDICTION,  or  PRE-EMINENCE  ivhatsocver,,  ivithin  the  realm  of 
England? 

'*  2.  Can  the  Pope  or  cardinals,  or  any  body  of  men,  or  any 
individual  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  absolve  or  dispense  with  his 
tnajesty^s  subjects,  from  their  oath  of  allegiance,  upon  any 
pretext  whatsoever? 

"  3.  Is  there  any  tenets  of  the  Catholic  faith,  by  which 
Catholics  ARE    JUSTIFIED  in  not  keeping  faith  ivith  here- 
tics, or  other  persons  differing  from  them  in  religious  opinions, 
in  any  transaction,  either  of  a  public  or  a  private  nature?'" 
The  Universities  answered  unanimously  : — 

*'  1.  That  the  Pope  or  cardinals,  or  any  body  of  men,  or  any 
individual  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  has  not  any  civil  authority, 
power,  jurisdiction,  or  pre-eminence  whatsoever,  within  the 
realm  of  England. 

"  2.  That  the  Pope  or  cardinals,  or  any  body  of  men,  or  any 
individual  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  cannot  absolve  or  dispense 
with  his  majesty's  subjects,  from  their  oath  of  allegiance,  upon 

ANY    pretext    whatsoever. 

"3.  That  there  is  no  principle  in  the  tenets  of  the  Ca- 
tholic faith,  by  which  Catholics  are  justified  in  not  keep- 
ing faith  with  heretics,  or  other  jjersons  differing  from  them  in 
religious  opinions,  in  any  transactions,  either  of  a  public  or  a 
private  nature.^' 

SIXTH  FACT.  That  the  Catholics  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  have  suffered  themselves  to  be  robbed  of  their  titles, 
their  civil  rights,  their  property,  their  reputation,  &lc.,  rather 
than  swear  a  false  oath.  They  wer^  required  to  swear,  that  they 
believed  in  the  religious  opinions  set  forth  in  various  acts  of  par- 
liament, and  that  they  did  not  believe  in  the  doctrines  of  their 
own  Church.  This,  they  knew,  would  be  j9e?7 wry.  And  because 
they  would  not  commit  this  perjury,  they  were  doomed  to  submit 
to  the  grinding  and  degradation  of  the  penai,  code,  which  brands 
protestantism  with  such  indelible  crimes  of  persecution  for  con- 
science sake,  as  ought  to  make  its  votaries  blush,  whenever  the 
words  "religious  freedom,"  "rights  of  conscience,"  are  accident- 
ally pronounced  in  their  presence.  A  Protestant  has  thus  described 
the  barbarous  operation  of  that  infernal  code : 

"  In  England,  this  code,  (the  penal  code,) — I.  Stripped  the 
peers  of  their  hereditary  right  to  sit  in  parliament.  II.  It  stripped 
the  gentlemen  of  their  right  to  be- chosen  members  of  the  Com- 
mons House.  III.  It  took  from  all,  the  right  to  vote  at  elections; 
and  though  Magna  Charta  says,  that  no  man  shall  be  taxed  with- 
out his  own  consent,  it  double-taxed  every  mail  who  refused  to 
abjure  his  religion,  and  thus  become  an  apostate.  IV.  It  shut 
them  out  from  all  offices  of  power  and  trust,  even  the  most  insig- 

35 


274 

nificant.  V.  It  took  from  tliem  the  right  of  presenting  to  livings 
in  the  Church,  though  that  right  was  given  to  Quakers  and  Jews. 
VI.  It  fined  them  at  the  rate  of  TWENTY  POUNDS  A 
MONTH,  for  keeping  away  from  that  Ghurch,  to  go  to  which 
they  deemed  apostacy.  VII.  It  disabled  them  from  keeping  arms 
in  their  houses /or  their  defence^  from  maintaimng  suits  at  law; 
from  being  guardians  or  executors ;  from  practising  in  law  or 
physic;  from  travelling  five  miles  from  their  houses,  and  all 
these,  under  heavy  penalties,  in  case  of  disobedience.  VIII.  Jf  a 
juarried  woman  kept  away  from,  Church,  she  forfeited  two- 
thirds  OF  HER  DOWER ;  slic  coukl  not  bc  executrix  to  her  hus- 
band, and  m,ight,  during  her  husband's  lifetime,  be  hnprisoned, 
unless  ransomed  by  him  at  ten  pounds  a  month.  IX.  It  enabled 
any  four  justices  of  the  peace,  in  case  a  man  had  been  convicted 
oi  not  going  to  Church,  to  call  him  before  them,  to  compel  Imn 
to  abjure  his  religion,  or,  if  he  refused,  to  sentence  him  to 
banishment  for  life,  (without  judge  or  jury,)  and,  if  he  re- 
turned, HE  WAS  TO  suffer  DEATH.  X.  It  enabled  any  two  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  to  call  before  them,  without  any  information, 
any  man  that  they  chose,  above  sixteen  years  of  age,  and  if  such 
man  refused  to  abjure  the  Catholic  religion,  and  continue  in  his 
refusal  for  six  months,  he  was  rendered  incapable  of  possessing 
land;   and  any  land,  the  possession  of  which  might  belong  to 

him,  CAME    INTO  THE    POSSESSION  OF  THE  NEXT  PrOTESTANT  HEIR, 

who  was  not  obliged  to  account  for  any  profits.  XI.  It  made 
such  man  incapable  of  purchasing  lands,  and  all  contracts  made 
by  him,  or  for  him,  were  null  and  void.  XII.  It  imposed  a 
fine  of  about  ten  pounds  a  month,  for  employing  a  Catholic 
schoolmaster  hi  a  private  family,  and  two  pounds  a  day  on  the 
schoolmaster  so  employed.  XIII.  It  imposed  a  fine  of  one  hun- 
dred pounds  for  sending  a  child  to  a  Catholic  foreign  school,  and 
the  child  so  sent  was  disabled  from  ever  inheriting,  purchasing, 
or  enjoying  lands,  or  piofits,  goods,  debts,  legacies,  or  sums  of 
money.  XIV.  It  punished  the  saying  of  mass,  by  a  fine  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty  pounds,  and  the  hearing  of  mass,  by  a  fine 
of  sixty  pounds.  XV.  Any  Catholic  priest,  who  returned  from 
beyond  the  seas,  and  who  did  not  abjure  his  religion  in  three 
DAYS  afterwards,  and  also  any  person,  who  returned  to  the 
Catholic  faith,  or  procured  another  to  return  to  it,  this  merciless, 
this  sanguinary  code,  punished  with  HANGING,  RIPPING 
OUT  OF  BOWELS,  and  QUARTERING. 

"  In  Ireland,  the  code  was  still  more  ferocious,  more  hideously 
bloody :  fot,  in  the  first  place,  all  the  cruelties  of  the  English 
code  had,  as  the  work  of  a  few  hours,  a  few  strokes  of  the  pen, 
in  one  single  act,  been  inflicted  upon  unhappy  Ireland:  and  then, 
IN  ADDITION,  the  Irish  code  contained,  amongst  many  other 
violations  of  all  the  laws  of  justice  and  humanity,  the  following 
twenty  most  savage  punishments.     I.  A  Catholic  schoolmaster. 


275 
private  or  public;,  or  even  usher  to  a  Protestant,  was  punished 

with    IMPRISONMENT,  BANISHMENT,  uud    FINALLY,  AS  A  FELON.       IL 

The  Catholic  clergy  were  not  allowed  to  he  in  the  country,  with- 
out being  registered,  and  kept  as  a  sort  of  prisoners  at  large  ;  and 
rewards  were  given,  (^oiit  of  the  revenue  raised  in  part  on  the 
Catholics^)  for  discovering  them  ;  fifty  pounds  for  an  archbishop 
or  bishop  ;  twenty  pounds  for  a  priest,  and  ten  pounds  for  a 
schoolmaster  or  usher.  Til.  Any  two  justices  of  the  peace  might 
call  before  them  any  Catholic,  order  him  to  declare  an  oath, 
where  and  when  jie  heard  mass,  who  were  present,  and  the 
name  and  residence  of  any  priest  or  schoolmaster  he  might  know 
of;  and  if  he  refused  to  obey  this  inhuman  inquisition,  they  had 
power  to  condemn  him,  (without  judge  or  jury,)  to  a  yearns  im- 
prisonment in  a  felon's  gaol,  or  to  pay  twenty  pounds.  IV.  No 
Catholic  could  purchase  any  manors,  nor  even  hold  under  a  lease 
for  more  than  thirty-one  years.  V.  Any  Protestant,  if  he  sus- 
pected any  one  of  holding  property  in  trust  for  a  Catholic,  or  of 
being  concerned  in  any  sale,  lease,  mortgage,  or  other  contracts 
for  a  Catholic ;  any  Protestant  thus  suspecting,  might  file  a  bill 
against  the  suspected  trustee,  and  take  the  estate  or  property 
FROM  him.  VI.  Any  Protestant  seeing  a  Catholic  tenant  of  a 
farm,  the  produce  of  which  farm  exceeded  the  amount  of  the  rent 
by  more  ihan  one-third,  might  dispossess  the  Catholic,  and 
enter  on  the  lease  in  his  stead.  VII.  Any  Protestant  see- 
ing a  Catholic  with  a  horse,  worth  inore  than  five  pounds,  might 
take  the  horse  away  frotn  him  upon  tendering  him  five  pounds, 
VIII.  In  order  to  prevent  the  smallest  chance  of  justice  in  these 
and  similar  cases,  none  but  knoivn  Protestants  were  to  be  jury^ 
wen  in  the  trial  of  any  such,  cases.  IX.  Horses  of  Catholics 
might  be  seized  for  the  use  of  the  militia;  and,  besides  this,  Ca- 
tholics were  compelled  to  pay  double  towards  the  militia.  X. 
Merchants,  whose  ships  and  goods  might  be  taken  by  privateers, 
during  a  war  with  a  Catholic  Prince,  were  to  be  compensated  for 
their  losses  by  a  levy  on  the  goods  and  lands  of  Catholics  only, 
though,  mind.  Catholics  were,  at  the  same  time,  impressed  and 
compelled  to  shed  their  blood  in  the  war  against  that  same  Catho- 
lic Prince.  XL  Property  of  a  Protestant,  whose  heirs  at  law 
were  Catholics,  was  to  go  to  the  nearest  Protestant  relation,  just 
the  same  as  if  the  Catholic  heirs  had  been  dead,  though  the  pro- 
perty might  be  entailed  on  them.  XII.  If  there  were  no  Protes- 
tant heir,  then,  in  order  to  break  up  all  Catholic  families,  the 
entail  and  all  heirship  were  set  aside,  and  the  property  was  di- 
vided, share  and  share  alike,  amongst  all  the  Catholic  heirs. 
XIII.  If  a  Protestant  had  an  estate  in  Ireland,  he  was  forbiddem 
to  marry  a  Catholic  in  or  out  of  Ireland.  XIV.  All  marriages  be- 
tween Protestants  and  Catholics  were  annulled,  though  many 
children  might  have  proceeded  from  them.  XV.  Every  priest, 
mho  celebrated  ii  marriage  between  a  Catholic  and  a  Protestant, 


276 

or  between   two   Protestants,  was   condemned    to    be    hanged. 

XVI.  A  Catholic  father  could  not  be  guardian  to,  or  have  the 
custody  of,  his  own  child,  if  the  child,  however  young,  PRE- 
TENDED to  be  a  Protestant ;  but  the  child  was  taken  from  its 
own    father,  and  put  into  the  custody  of  a  Protestant  relation. 

XVII.  If  any  child  of  a  Catholic  became  a  Protestant,  the  parent 
was  to  be  instantly  summoned,  and  to  be  made  to  declare,  upon 
oath,  the  full  value  of  his  or  her  property,  of  all  sorts  ;  and  then 
the  chancery  was  to  make  such  distribution  of  the  property  as  it 
thought  fit.  XVIII.  '  Wives,  be  obedient  unto  your  own  hus- 
bands,' says  the  great  apostle.  '.Wives,  be  disobedient  to  them,' 
said  this  horrid  code  ;  for  if  the  wife  of  a  Catholic  chose  to  turn 
Protestant,  it  set  aside  the  will  of  the  husband,  and  made  her  a 
participator  in  all  his  possessions,  in  spite  of  him,  however  im- 
moral, hoivever  bad  a  wife  or  a  bad  mother  she  might  have  been, 
XIX.  '  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother,  that  thy  days  may  be 
long  in  the  land,  which  the  Lord,  thy  God,  giveth  thee.'  '  Dis- 
honour them,'  said  this  savage  code  ;  for  if  any  one  of  the  sons 
of  a  Catholic  father  became  a  Protestant,  this  son  was  to  possess 
all  the  father  had,  and  the  father  could  not  sell,  could  not  mort- 
gage, could  not  leave  legacies  or  portions,  out  of  his  estate,  by 
whatever  title  he  might  hold  it,  even  though  it  might  have  been 
the  fruit  of  his  own  toil.  XX.  Lastly,  (of  this  score,  but  this  is 
only  a  part,)  '■  the  Church,  as  by  law  established,'  was,  in  her 
great  indulgence,  pleased  not  only  to  open  her  doors,  but  to 
award,  (out  of  the  taxes,)  thirty  pounds  a  year  for  life  to  any 
Catholic  priest,  who  would  abjure  his  religion,  and  declare  his 
belief  in  hers^ 

Such  is  but  a  part  of  the  punishment  which  Catholics  might 
have  escaped,  if  the  doctrines  of  their  Church  had  only  permitted 
tbeni  to  swear  a  lie,  by  which  Protestants  would  have  hailed 
them  as  converts  to  pure  Christianity.  And  yet,  after  an  ordeal 
of  three  centuries  of  persecution,  the  Catholic  religion  is  found  to 
have  been  gaining  ground  for  the  last  one  hundred  and  fifty  years, 
in  spite  of  human  efforts  to  crush  and  extinguish  it.  But  although 
the  Presbyterians  were  themselves  sometimes  sufferers  by  penal 
laws,  yet  it  is  a  fact,  that  in  all  their  grievances  against  the  govern- 
ment, the  neglect  to  put  these  sanguinary  and  inhuman  laivs 
into  rigorous  and  merciless  execution  against  the  Catholics  was 
always  at  the  head  of  the  list.  And  yet  they  talk  about  being 
friends  of  religious  freedom  ! !  • 

SEVENTH  FACT.  That  the  first  declaration  of  religious 
and  civil  freedom  and  equality,  that  was  ever  published  by  a  legis- 
lative body,  was  by  the  Catholic  Colony  of  Maryland.  They  had 
fled  from  persecution ;  they  offered  an  example,  which  7ione  had 
given,  and  which  few  other  denominations  were  prompt  to  imitate. 
Did  they,  in  this,  violate  any  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  religion? 
As  the  Protestants  of  Germany,  persecuted  by  their  fellow  Pio- 


277 

testanls,  found  protection  and  liberty  of  conscience  in  Poland, 
with  its  Catholic  population  of  20,000,000,  so  did  the  victims  of 
Protestant  persecution  in  this  country  find  an  asylum  in  Catholic 
Maryland,  where  conscience  was  declared  free. 

EIGHTH  FACT.  That  the  last  Catholic  king,  that  sat  on 
the  throne  of  Great  Britain,  was  expelled  from  his  dominions  for 
being  a  Catholic,  and  for  not  being  a  persecutor.  It  is  acknow- 
ledged, that  the  profession  of  the  Catholic  religion,  and  the  attempt 
to  establish  universal  toleration,  lost  the  crown  and  kingdom  to 
James  II.  and  his  son. 

NINTH  FACT.  T\i2.i  some  oi  i\ie  most  democratic  and  free 
cantons  of  Switzerland  are  the  Catholic  cantons. 

TENTH  FACT.  That  the  independence  of  this  country  was 
won  by  the  efforts  and  blood  of  Catholics,  as  well  as  Protestants. 
That  Archbishop  Carroll,  then  a  Jesuit  priest,  was  among  the 
most  zealous  in  co-operating  with  the  other  Catholic  and  Protes- 
tant patriots  by  whom  it  was  secured. 

Will  any  man,  therefore,  who  is  endowed  with  common  under- 
standing, and  is  not  bent  on  gratuitous  falsehood  and  misrepresen- 
tation, say,  that  a  religion,  whose  members  may  and  can,  indivi- 
dually and  collectively,  furnish  such  evidences,  both  of  principle 
and  of  practice,  on  the  question  of  civil  and  religious  liberty, 
without  violating  any  doctrine  of  their  creed,  is  opposed  to  civil 
and  religious  liberty?  And  whilst  the  gentleman  on  the  other  . 
side  has  signally,  and  triumphantly  FAILED ; — in  every  attempt 
to  prove  the  affirmative,  I  submit  to  the  cool,  sober,  and  just  judg- 
ment of  reflecting  men,  whether  I  have  not  established  the  nega- 
tive of  the  question.     I  am  willing  to  abide  by  their  judgment. 

And  now  we  have  to  pass  to  the  Presbyterian  religion.  There 
I  shall  show,  first,  that  its  doctrines,  not  falsely  imputed,  hut 
avowed  in  the  Corifession  of  Faith,  are  truly  hostile  to  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  t  shall  show,  that  they  have  led  to  persecution, 
and,  if  reduced  to  practice,  that  they  would  lead  to  persecution 
again  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  in  this  very  country.  If  I 
do  not  prove  my  proposition,  so  as  to  make  the  gentleman  shrink 
from  an  attempt  to  answer  my  arguments,  I  shall  ask  no  man  to 
believe  me.  Facts  and  logic  shall  be  my  auxiliaries,  leaving  to 
the  gentleman  all  the  advantages  of  popular  prejudice,  and  of  his 
peculiarly  ingenious  mode  of  spreading  it,  as  a  mantle,  over  the 
weakness  of  his  arguments. 


PART     II. 


"IS  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  RELIGION,  IN  ANY  OR  IN  ALL  ITS 
PRINCIPLES  OR  DOCTRINES,  OPPOSED  TO  CIVIL  OR  RE- 
LIGIOUS LIBERTY]" 


DISCUSSION. 


"  Is  the  Presbyterian  Religion,  in  any  or  all  of  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  7^^ 


AFFIRMATIVE  I.— MR.  HUGHES. 

Mr.  President  : — 
Before  I  enter  on  the  arguments  in  proof  of  the  affirmative  of 
the  question,  I  beg  to  be  indulged  in  a  few  remarks,  by  way  of  in- 
troduction. Some  time  before  the  commencement  of  the  present 
discussion,  my  attention  was  drawn  to  the  subject  by  a  notice,  in 
the  public  papers,  that  the  religion  of  a  large  body  of  American 
citizens  was  to  be  made  the  subject  of  crimination  and  defence,  in 
a  Debating  Society.  Having  attended  on  the  occasion,  I  took  the 
liberty  to  suggest,  in  the  most  respectful  manner,  the  inexpediency 
of  treating  such  a  question  in  such,  a  place.  Prejudice  and  popu- 
lar calumnies  might  make  many  members  eloquent  in  attacking; — 
whilst  incompetency  to  detect  sophistry,  and  want  of  specific  in- 
formation on  that  subject,  might  render  others  unequal  to  the  task 
of  defending.  The  consequence  would  be  so  far  injurious  to  the 
Catholic  body,  in  their  civil  and  religious  rights.  I  did  not  imagine, 
nor  do  I  believe  now,  that  the  members  of  this  Society  could  be 
induced  to  be  employed,  knowingly,  as  tools,  in  the  hands  of  a 
combination  of  bigotry  and  malice,  whose  centre  is  New  lork, 
and  whose  contemplated  circumference  is  the  boundary  of  the 
land.  The  man  must  be  blind  to  clear  evidence,  who  does  not  see 
the  existence  of  a  dark  conspiracy,  having  for  its  ultimate  object, 
to  make  the  Presbyterian  Church  the  dominant  religion  of  this 
country, — the  workings  of  the  same  spirit,  which,  having  been 
foiled  in  its  attempt  to  stop  the  Sunday  mail,  has  now  hit  upon  a 
more  popular,  more  cunning,  and,  therefore,  a  more  dangerous  ex- 
pedient for  the  accomplishment  of  its  unhallowed  purpose.  This 
expedient  is,  to  combine  all  Protestants  in  a  general  effort  to  put 
diOwv\,  first,  the  denomination  that  is  most  unpopular,  and  then,  by 
the  same  rule,  to  graduate  the  scale  in  reference  to  other  sects,  un- 
til Presbyterians  shall  be  predomindtit.    The  watchword  is  well  se- 

36 


282 

lected.  Under  the  pretence  of  solicitude  for  the  preservation  of 
CIVIL  AND  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY,  tlic  Catliolics  are  to  be  robh)ed  of 
both.  They  are  to  be  denounced  as  "^foreigners  ;" — and  foreigners 
are  at  the  bottom  of  the  plot  for  their  destruction.  These  in- 
triguing adventurers,  who  come  inflated  with  the  spirit  of  John 
Knox,  care  not  what  dissensions  may  ensue,  what  charities  may 
be  broken  up,  what  blood  may  flow,  provided  that,  under  the  plea 
of  guarding  against  "  foreigneis,"  they  may  be  allowed  to  sting 
the  Republic,  and  distil  into  its  veins  the  poison  of  bigotry  and 
intolerance,  which  will  soon  reach  its  heart.  But  they  would 
have  the  work  of  their  own  creation  to  appear  as  the  spontaneous 
manifestation  of  American  feeling.  And  hence,  we  find,  by  a  co- 
incidence, loo  striking  to  be  natural,  that  the  same  question,  which 
was  selected  for  debate  in  this  Society,  was,  at  the  same  time, 
undergoing  discussion  in  New  York,  Ohio,  Kentucky,  and  the 
Eastern  states.  They  knew  very  well,  that  throughout  the  coun- 
try, for  every  man  that  has  read  the  Council  of  Trent,  there  are 
ten  thousand  who  have  read  the  popular  treatises,  written  expressly 
to  misrepresent  the  tenets  of  Catholicity,  and  to  vilify  the  profes- 
sors of  that  creed. 

Presbyterian  clergymen  had  left  their  own  pulpits,  where  their 
ministry  might  have  been  salutary,  in  teaching  their  congregations 
the  meek  doctrines  of  the  Saviour,  in  preaching  good  will  and' 
charity  among  men, — and  were  passing  from  city  to  city,  and  from 
district  to  district,  rousing  the  worst  passions  of  the  human  breast 
into  hatred  and  enmity  against  Catholics.  Their  object  was  to 
agitate  the  elements  of  strife,  and  the  pulpit,  from  whence  men. 
should  learn  to  forget  and  forgive,  was  selected  as  the  laboratory^.. 

It  was  in  this  state  of  the  case  that  the  discussion  of  the  ques- 
tion, respecting  the  Catholic  religion,  was  announced  on  the  part 
of  the  Union  Literary  and  Debating  Society ;  and,  although  I  be- 
lieve that  the  gentlemen  composing  it  were  too  high-minded,  too 
American,  to  become  tools  in  the  hands  even  of  parsons,  know- 
ingly,  yet  it  was  manifest,  that  the  purposes  of  those  fanatics 
would  be  equally  subserved  by  a  discussion,  when  all  could  at- 
tack, and  none,  perhaps,  were  qualified  by  education  to  defend. 
It  was  on  these  accounts  that  I  attended,  with  a  view  to  see  how 
such  a  question  would  be  disposed  of,  in  such  an  assembly.  My 
anticipations,  in  this  regard,  were  not  disappointed.  Hence,  I 
made  some  remarks,  showing  the  injustice  done  to  Catholics,  un- 
der these  circumstances.  At  the  request  of  the  respected  Presi- 
dent, I  consented  to  deliver  an  address  on  the  principles  involved 
in  the  discussion,  and  on  the  distinction  between  the  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  religion,  and  the  sayings  or  doings  of  its  nominal 
members.  This,  after  my  arrival  on  the  evening  appointed,  was 
refused  by  the  Society.  I  should  either  depart,  or  else  speak  for 
a  certain  time,  when  1  might  be  answered  by  any  respondent.  I 
chose  the  latter,  because  I  knew  that,  if  I  did  not,  the  trump  of 


283 

triumphant  falsehood  would  proclaim  my  retreat,  and  ascribe 
to  a  wrong  motive.  In  fact,  as  it  was,  the  veracious  Pres- 
byterian, and  another  paper,  published  in  New  York,  called  the 
Protestant  Vindicator,  proclaimed  that  I  was  pulverised,  annihi- 
lated, and  that,  after  having  been  reduced  to  nothing,  1  fled.  You 
till  know  how  that  was.  But  if  they  could  publish  such  a  statement, 
unsupported  by  one  little  of  truth,  how  much  more,  in  case  I  had, 
in  fact,  declined  the  discussion  ?  On  that  evening  I  had  to  encoun- 
ter the  Rev.  Wm.  L.  M'Calla,  a  gentleman  whom,  for  various  rea- 
sons, I  was  by  no  means  ambitious  of  meeting.  He  was  in  keep- 
ing,'however,  for  the  occasion,  and  made  his  debut,  by  the  signifi- 
cant declaration,  that  he  was  no  "  green  horn,"  and,  "  as  Sam  Patch 
said,  there  was  no  mistake  in  that.''  He  was  only  a  substitute, 
however,  appointed. by  my  present  Rev.  opponent.  This  ap- 
pointment was  made,  according  to  his  own  explanation,  in  Phila- 
delphia on  Friday  evening.  And  yet  he  writes /rom  New  York 
on  the  Wednesday  following,  that  he  had  ''■just  learnt,'"  that  I 
was  to  address  the  society  on  the  following  evening.  He  com- 
plains that  by  this  I  impeach  his  veracity.  I  answer  that  for  the 
statement  of  both  facts,  he  is  himself  my  author,  and  of  course, 
it  is  for  him  to  explain  in  the  best  way  he  can,  how  he  sliould 
hav'C  learnt  in  New  York,  on  Wednesday,  what  he  acknowledges 
he  knew  in  Philadelphia  on  the  Friday  previous. 

He  returned  from  New  York  in  due  season.  The  first  evening 
the  debate  was  opened  by  a  young  gentleman  of  the  Society,  fol- 
lowed by  several  others.  The  anti-Catholic  battery  was  manned  by 
■a.  goodly  number,  including  the  venerable  gentleman,  on  the  left  of 
-my  opponent.  I,  sir,  had  to  stand  the  fire  of  them  all,  and  I  hope 
Ihey  will  be  prepared  to  defend  Presbyterians,  when  the  time  shall 
come,  and  to  receive  a  shot  in  return.  The  venerable  gentleman's 
mind,  as  I  remember,  labouied  strangely  under  the  conflicting  claims 
of  friendship  and  duty.  "  Out  of  this  place,  no  man  had  greater 
respect  for  Mr.  Hughes  than  he  had,  but  here  he  knew  no  ma«." 
Presbyterian  charity  is  always  geographical,  mine  is  catholic- 
I  respect  age  everywhere,  and,  therefore,  I  dismiss  the  subjects 
Yet  the  gentleman's  remarks  came  in  the  richness  of  Scotch-Irish 
accents,  that  brought  back  thie  ears  of  my  childhood,  when  Presby- 
terian lads  were  my  school-companions,  and  would  have  flogged 
the  urchin  who  should  have  attempted  to  impose  on  me. 

Subsequently,  the  definitions  of  liberty,  civil  and  religious,  as 
well  of  doctrines,  and  the  rules  of  the  discussion,  were  agreed 
upon,  and  signed  by  the  gentleman  and  myself,  in  a  private  inter- 
view. I  thought  then,  that  he  would  have  complied  with  his 
own  deliberate  agreement,  and  have  "  kept  faith  with  a  heretic." 
But  no.  He  agreed  that  nothing  should  be  adduced  against  the 
Catholic  religion,  as  argument,  except  what  should  be  admitted, 
or  proved  by  a  General  Council,  or  the  bull  of  a  Pope,  to  be  a  doc- 
trine  of  that  religion.     And  yet,  on  the  first  evening  of  the  de- 


284 

bate,  he  assumed,  that  every  document  emanating  from  either  of 
iliese  sources,  mioit  be  a  doctrine.  Discipline,  history  of  events, 
le;^islalion,  enactment,  everything  was  doctrine.  He  was  as  in- 
nocent of  tlie  knowledge  of  what  constituted  doctrine^  as  the  child 
unborn.  Two  or  three  days  before,  he  had  defined  "  doctrines  as 
those  tenets  of  faith  and  morals,  which  a  denomination  teaches, 
AS  HAVING  BEEN  REVEALED  Bv  Almighty  God."  But  on  the  en- 
trance into  this  Hall,  his  memory  was  overtaken  with  a  most  un- 
accountable "  backsliding  and  short-coming."  Then  everything 
that  a  Council  said,  or  a  Pope  did,  was  a  doctrine.  When  I  re- 
minded him  of  his  contract,  that,  unless  it  had  been  taught  by  the 
council  or  the  Pope,  as  "  having  been  revealed  by  Almighty  God," 
he  should  not  assume  it  as  a  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  religion,  his 
answer  was,  that  I  meant  to  "  cramp  the  discussion."  But  even 
with  this  latitude,  the  councils  and  Popes  were  soon  relinquished 
foi  tlie  authority  of  the  renegade,  the  apostate  De  Pradt;  and  this 
apostate,  and  outcast  from  the  Church,  the  gentleman  would  pass 
off  for  a  Catholic.  Was  this  ignorance  ?  was  it  disingenuous- 
ness  ? 

When  De  Pradt  failed,  Tristam  Shandy  was  adduced  to  prove  Ca- 
tholic doctrine — and  the  records  of  the  Parliament  of  Paris,  from 
which  the  gentleman  drew  mighty  inferences,  although  he  never 
got  farther  than  the  Index.  Still  he  proceeded  uncontrolled,  turn- 
ing every  thing  into  doctrines,  and  obstinately  determined  to  make 
Catholics  hold,  as  tenets  revealed  by  Almighty  God,  whatever  he 
or  Tristam  Shandy  charged  them  with  believing. 

It  was  not  for  me  to  instruct  the  gentleman  as  to  how  he  should 
conduct  his  argument.  Still,  1  must  observe,  that  so  palpable  a 
violation  of  an  agreement  I  have  never  witnessed.  In  the  whole 
six  evenings,  the  gentleman  never  touched  on  a  "  doctrine," 
except  one  or  two.  He  took  liberties  with  the  few  bulls  of 
popes  in  the  way  of  additions  and  suppressions,  and  the  ex- 
posures which  followed  show  that  the  animals  wheeled  upon 
him  and  horned  him.  There  he  remains,  and  the  only  consola- 
tion he  has,  is,  that,  in  his  falsification  of  documents,  he  only 
copied  after  the  Rev.  G.  Stanley  Faber — clarum  et  venerabile 
nomen. 

His  tirade  against  the  Catholic  religion  passed  through  the 
three  stages  of  the  facetious,  the  furious  and  the  flat.  He  opened 
with  the  story  of  "Paddy  and  his  horse" — this  was  funny;  he 
continued  by  "  oceans  of  blood" — "  millions  of  butchered  Pro- 
testants"— these  vj ere  furious  figures;  he  terminated  with  the 
anecdote  of  the  "  butcher  and  his  ham" — and  the  "  hen  laying 
eggs" — this  was  flat.     In  a  word — 

He  commenced  with  a  "wen," 
And  he  closed  with  a  "  hen." 

I  recognize  the  fitness,  as  well  as  humility,  6f  the  emblem. 


285 

Still,  if  I  were  ambitious  of  immortality  as  an  author,  I  should 
have  selected  a  nobler  bird;  I  should  have  endeavoured  to  mount 
on  the  eagle's  pinions,  and  gone  down  to  posterity  in  a  style  of 
which  posterity  need  not  be  ashamed.  But  all  this  is  past, 
and  the  "  Presbyterian  Religion"  is  now  on  its  trial,  mine  being 
the  right  to  prosecute,  and  his  the  duty  to  defend. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  charge  that  religion  with  holding  "  doc- 
trines"— "  tenets  of  faith  and  morals,  as  having  been  revealed  by 
Almighty  God,"  which  are  opposed  to  the  "  civil  and  religious 
liberty"  of  all  men  who  are  not  Presbyterians.  That  religion, 
under  the  head  of  "  God's  Eternal  Decree, "(1)  teaches  that  God 
from  all  eternity  did  "  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass."  The  same  doctrine  is  taught  in  Larger  and 
Smaller  Catechism,(2)  where  the  word  "  fore-ordained"  is  applied 
to  "  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  I  am  aware  that  the  text  goes 
on  to  disclaim  the  consequences  of  this  doctrine,  by  stating  that 
God  is  not  on  this  account  "  the  author  of  sin,"  which  I  do  not 
assert  Him  to  be.  And  further,  that  "  neither  is  violence  offered 
to  the  will  of  the  creatures,"  of  which  I  also  say,  let  that  pass. 
But  when  it  goes  on  to  assert,  that  the  "  liberty  or  contingency 
of  second  causes  is  not  taken  away,  but  rather  established,"  by 
this  doctrine, — I  must  beg  leave  to  demur.  How  an  act  can  be 
'"  unchangeably  fore-ordained,''''  and  yet  the  agent,  who  was 
"  fore-ordained"  to  do  that  act,  be  at  liberty  to  leave  it  undone, 
is  what  I  leave  to  the  gentleman  or  the  General  Assembly  to 
explain. 

Let  us  illustrate  this  doctrine  by  a  particular  case.  In  the  year 
155.3,  Michael  Servetus  was  burned  alive  for  heresy,  in  Geneva, 
by  John  Calvin,  or  through  his  influence.  Now,  according  to 
this  doctrine,  the  time,  the  place,  the  agent,  had  all  been  deter- 
mined and  "fore-ordained  unchangeably;"  and,  if  so,  Calvin 
could  not  avoid  the  part  assigned  to  him  in  this  tragedy  of  blood. 
If  he  could  not  avoid  it,  where  was  his  *'  liberty"  as  "  a  second 
cause?"  If  he  had  no  "  liberty"  to  avoid  it,  where  could  be  his 
guilt?  And  here  is  the  reason,  that,  whilst  all  other  denomina- 
tions regard  him,  in  connexion  with  this  matter,  as  one  whose 
hands  were  purpled  with  blood  of  a  man,  who  was  not  amenable 
to  his  tribunal,  the  Presbyterians  regard  him  as  a  saint,  who  is 
not  to  be  held  accountable  for  having  done  what  God  from  all 
eternity  had  "  unchangeably  fore-ordained"  that  he  should  do ! 
Apply  this  principle  to  John  Knox  and  his  associates,  in  the  assas- 
sination of  Cardinal  Beaton ;  and  to  the  others,  in  the  assassination  of 
Archbishop  Sharp — the  execution  of  Laud,  Strafford,  Charles  I., 
<fcc. — and,  last  of  all,  to  the  burning  of  the  Convent  at  Boston. 
The  doctrine  that  God  has   "  unchangeably  fore-ordained  what- 

(1)  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  III.  p.  15. 

(2)  Page  146  and  .321. 


286 

soever  comes  to  pass,"  is  applicable  to  all  these  cases,  and  to  all 
the  crimes  that  ever  were,  or  ever  will  be  committed.  The 
agents  were  but  the  irresponsible  tools  of  omnipotent  power — 
*'  fore-ordained"  to  execute  "  whatsoever  comes  to  pass" — the 
evil  as  well  as  the  good;  for  the  word  "  whatsoever''^  comprises 
both.  Now  there  can  be  jieithei  merit  nor  crime  in  executing 
the  decrees  of  God ;  and  where  there  is  neither,  there  can  be  no 
punishment — no  reward.  Hence,  it  follows,  that  this  doctrine 
is  subversive  of  that  fundamental  principle,  on  the  admission  of 
which,  the  safety  of  states,  the  authority  of  human  laws,  the  wel- 
fare of  society  depend — viz.  the  principle  of  future  *'  rewards  and 
punishment s^  The  doctrine  of  the  decree  "  unchangeably  fore- 
ordaining" whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  destroys  the  doctrine  of 
free  will  and  moral  responsibility.  I  do  not  say  that  Presbyte- 
rians act  out  this  doctrine  of  their  Confession  of  Faith ;  but  that 
its  tendencies  are  such  as  I  have  described,  no  man  who  has  a 
mind  capable  of  tracing  the  connexion  between  principles  and 
their  consequences,  can,  for  a  moment,  deny.  The  gentleman 
will  not  venture  to  deny  the  doctrine;  and  I  challenge  him  to 
reifute  the  argument,  which  it  confirms,  as  here  laid  down,  and 
proven.  Reduced  to  the  form  of  a  syllogism,  it  may  be  stated 
thus : — 

Any  religion  that  holds,  as  a  "  tenet  of  faith  revealed  by  Almighty 
God,"  that  "  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  was  "  unchangeably  fore- 
ordained," is  opposed  and  dangerous  to  civil  and  religous  liberty, 
by  reducing  its  votaries  from  the  position  of  moral,  free,  respon- 
sible agents,  to  that  of  the  mere  instruments  of  God's  eternal 
decree,  for  the  execution  of  "  whatever  comes  to  pass." 

But  the  Presbyterian  Religion  holds  this  doctrine: 

Therefore  the  Presbyterian  Religion  is,  in  this  respect,  opposed 
and  dangerous  to  civil  and  religious  liberty.     First  Argument. 

Intimately  connected  with  this,  is  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of 
*'  election  and  reprobation."  The  belief  that  God  would  render 
to  every  man  according  to  his  works,  in  the  judgment  of  another 
life,  has  been  the  conservative  principle  of  all  social  rights  since 
the  beginning  of  the  world.  It  furnishes  the  check  by  which  the 
conscience  of  a  good  man  curbs  and  restrains  the  passions  of 
cupidity  and  self-interest.  It  furnishes  the  motive,  reaching  to 
the  inmost  soul,  for  which  we  should  avoid  evil  and  do  good. 
It  supposes,  that,  with  the  help  of  divine  grace,  we  are  not  only 
free,  but  able  to  fulfil  the  requisitions  of  justice  towards  God  and 
our  neighbour.  Wherever  this  salutary  belief  is  rejected,  there 
the  corner  stone  of  social  safety  is  removed,  and  the  edifice, 
unless  sustained  by  other  support,  will  totter  and  fall.  Now  this 
principle  is  rejected  by  the  Presbyterian  Religion,  which  teaches 
that  our  good  or  evil  works,  in  this  life,  do  not  in  any  wise  con- 
tribute as  a  help  or  a  hindrance,  to  our  eternal  happiness  or  misery 
in  the  life  to  come:  consequently,  there  is  no  motive  of  reward  or 


287 

punishment,  among  the  believers  of  that  creed,  springing  from  the 
considerations  of  eternity,  to  counteract  and  subdue  the  workings 
of  temporal  self-interest. 

Their  doctrine  is,  that,  "  by  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  mani- 
festation of  his  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto 
everlasting  life,  and  others  fore-ordained  to  everlasting  death." 
And  this  (for  the  elect)  out  of  his  mere  free  grace  and  love,  with- 
out any  foresight  of  faith  and  good  works,  or  perseverance  in 
either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature,  as  conditions^ 
or  causes  moving  Him  thereunto;   and  all  for  the  praise  of  his 

glorious  grace."     "  The  rest  of  mankind,  God  was  pleased 

to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonour  and  wrath,  for  their 
sin,  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice. "(1)  Since  this  conse- 
quence was  *'  for  their  sin,"  it  would  follow  that  God  had  fore- 
ordained their  sin.  But  as  Presbyterians  disclaim  this  blasphe- 
mous consequence,  I  will  not  urge  it,  although  I  cannot  see  how 
they  can  escape  it,  consistently  with  the  doctrine  that  God  has 
"  unchangeably  fore-ordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass." 

But  it  is  manifest  from  the  doctrines  here  stated,  that  "  good 
works"  cannot  contribute  to  secure  the  salvation,  nor  to  hinder 
damnation  of  Presbyterians.  Whence  it  follows,  that  with  them, 
all  is  fixed  as  fate ;  that  those  who  are  to  be  saved,  will  be  saved, 
whatever  may  be  the  extent  of  their  wickedness ;  and  that  those 
who  are  to  be  damned,  will  be  damned,  in  spite  of  all  their  efforts 
to  avoid  it,  by  a  virtuous,  upright,  honest  life.  The  gentleman 
cannot  deny  these  consequences  consistently  with  the  Confession 
of  Faith.  Whence  I  conclude- 
That  any  religion  which  makes  eternal  happiness  and  eternal 
misery  depend  on  an  absolute  decree,  '*  excluding  the  foresight  of 
faith  and  good  works,  or  perseverance  in  either  of  them,  or  any 
other  thing  in  the  creature,  as  conditions, ''^  is  dangerous,  and 
opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty ;  by  inculcating  implicitly  that 
the  invasion  of  the  civil  and  religious  rights  of  others,  in  this  life, 
cannot  affect  the  destinies  of  the  soul,  in  the  life  to  come. 

But  the  Presbyterian  Religion  holds  the  doctrine  of  which  this 
is  the  logical  and  undeniable  consequence: 

Therefore,  in  this  doctrine,  that  religion  is  opposed  to  civil  and 
religious  liberty.     Second  Argument. 

I  am  not  ignorant  that  Presbyterians  disclaim  this  consequence, 
but  I  dispute  their  right  to  disclaim  it.  It  is  deduced  from  their 
doctrine  as  fairly  as  ever  consequence  flowed  from  premises,  and 
those  who  deny  it,  must  either  have  minds  incapable  of  making 
inductions,  or  else  be  persuaded  that  all  reasoning  is  a  farce. 
According  to  their  doctrine,  I  am  fore-ordained  to  everlasting  life, 
or  everlasting  death,  by  the  eternal  decree  of  God;  and  no  actions 
of  mine  can  disappoint  my  eternal  destiny.     Now  this  principle 

(1)  Confession  of  Faith,  pp.  17,  18,  19. 


288 

pervades  the  whole  Presbyterian  denomination,  and  takes  from 
them  the  motive  which  would  render  the  civil  and  religious 
rights  of  other  denominations  sacred  in  their  estimation.  How 
is  that  motive  taken  away?  By  their  belief  that  God  will 
judge  them,  not  by  their  actions,  but  by  his  own  eternal 
decree.  To  the  influence  of  this  doctrine,  I  ascribe  that  dark, 
morose,  restless,  aspiring,  turbulent,  intolerant,  and  persecut- 
ing spirit,  which  has  characterized  the  ardent  disciples  of  this 
sect,  from  the  hour  of  its  birth ; — distinguishing  it  from  all 
other  sects  and  denominations.  Assuming  that  God  had  elected 
thein  as  special  favourites,  they  naturally  grow  proud  by  the  dis- 
tinction in  comparison  with  other  men,  who,  in  the  language  of 
their  creed,  have  been  "passed  by."  Hence,  as  the  Christian 
heirs  of  these  prerogatives,  which  God  bestowed  on  his  chosen 
people  under  the  Jewish  law,  they  would  exercise  over  every 
country,  that  right  of  exclusive  domination  which  the  children  of 
Jacob,  by  divine  permission,  exercised  in  reference  to  the  inha- 
bitants and  territory  of  Canaan.  You  can  find  no  period  in  their 
history,  in  which  they  were  not  oppressed — or  oppressing — and 
sometimes  both.  Whilst  the  laws  and  government  of  Protestant 
England  were  severe,  and  severely  executed  against  them,  their 
cry  was  that  the  oppression  of  the  Catholics  was  not  sufficiently 
grinding.  They  emerged  from  every  persecution  with  the  fierce 
spirit  of  intolerance,  unquenched  and  unquenchable.  Even  in 
this  country,  without  a  single  legitimate  motive  to  stimulate  th5m, 
they  are  now  attempting  to  rob  their  Catholic  fellow-citizens  of 
the  civil  and  religious  rights  secured  by  the  Constitution.  Other 
denominations  of  Protestants  are  used  by  them  as  "  cats'-paws ;" 
and  will,  no  doubt,  in  due  season,  receive  their  merited,  but  un- 
welcome recompense,  at  the  hand  of  predominant  Presbyterianism. 
They  are  the  favoured  class  ;  with  the  decree  of  election  and 
reprobation  as  a  patent  of  impunity  in  the  other  world  for  actions 
done  in  this,  they  have  conscieniioics  facilities,  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  projects  dictated  by  private  or  sectarian  ambition, 
which  are  denied  to  the  consciences  of  those  who  hold,  as  a 
doctrine,  that  their  conduct  in  this  life  will  have  a  serious  influence 
on  the  judgment  of  their  souls  in  the  life  to  come. 

This  difference  accounts  also  for  the  fact,  that  the  Presbyterians  in 
every  instance,  where  their  numbers  gave  hope  of  success,  aimed, 
and  often  successfully,  at  the  supreme  civil  power  of  the  state ; 
perfectly  indifferent  as  to  the  means  by  which  it  might  be  acquired. 
Hence  their  libels  on  governments,  which  they  wished  to  over- 
turn, and  then  civil  war  to  be  followed  by  defeat  or  victory.  It 
was  thus,  trampling  on  tlie  civil  and  religious  rights  of  the  Catho- 
lics, that  they  established  their  religioh  in  Scotland,  England  and 
on  the  Continent  of  Europe.  The  excitement  of  popular  commo- 
tion, the  circulation  of  libels,  the  inflaming  of  the  passions  of  the 
multitude,  were  the  usual  precursors  of  some  political  stroke 
which  should  place  Presbyterians  uppermost.      The  attack  on 


289 

Catholics  wliich  they  are  now  cxcithig  the  people  to  make,  is  not 
their  first  attempt  in  this  country,  to  obtain  tlie  control  and  di- 
rection of  the  civil  government.  We  all  remember  the  effort  made 
by  them,  as  a  trial  of  strength,  to  have  the  Sunday  mail  stopped, 
and  by  an  act  of  Congress,  save  the  country  from  the  national 
sin  of  transporting  letters  on  the  Sabbath-day.  The  experiment 
failed.  We  all  remember  the  efforts  to  have  the  "  Sunday  School 
Union"  incorporated ;  and  the  anticipation  that  w^as  indulged  in 
of  the  political  influence  which  would  be  placed  at  the  disposal 
of  the  Presbyterians,  throngh  its  instrumentality,  in  ten  or  at 
most  twenty  years.  We  all  remember  the  boast  of  Dr.  Ely,  that 
Presbyterians  alone  could  bring  half  a  million  voters  to  the  poll, 
and  his  effort  to  establish  "  a  Christian  party  in  politics."  All 
these  efTorts  failed.  But  the  untiring,  indomitable  spirit  of  Pres- 
byterian ambition,  returns  to  the  onset,  and  out  of  pure,  disinter- 
ested zeal  "  for  civil  and  religions  liberty"  undertakes  to  deprive 
Catholics  of  both.  It  will  be  again  defeated ; — as  soon  as  it  will 
be  discovered,  that  there  is  an  ulterior  object  towards  which  the 
putting  down  of  the  Catholics  is  but  the  first  stepping  stone. 

Another  point  of  danger  in  the  creed  of  this  denomination  is  the 
right  claimed  by  them  to  alter  their  doctrine,  according  to  the  inter- 
ests of  their  position  on  the  scale  of  political  ascendancy.  Thus, 
the  principles  of  the  "  Solemn  League  and  Covenant"  constituted 
their  doctrines  so  long  as  they  were  able,  by  means  of  the  civil 
power,  to  force  their  adoption  on  others.  But  after  the  restoration 
of  the  Episcopalian  interest  to  supreme  power  under  Charles  II., 
it  was  found  that  a  more  relaxed  creed  would  suit  their  interest 
better.  And  the  small  band  of  Presbyterians,  called  "  Covenan- 
ters," preserved  alone  the  profession  of  their  principles.  The 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  became  the  nominal  standard  of 
doctrine,  among  the  degenerate  sons  of  defection.  This  document 
taught,  as  a  doctrine,  that  for  publishing  or  maintaining  certain 
erroneous  opinions,  persons  might  be  called  to  account,  and  pro- 
ceeded against,  by  the  censures  of  the  church,  "  and  by  the  power 
of  the  civil  magistrate."  That  the  "civil  magistrate"  may  sup- 
press blasphemies  and  heresies.  That  it  is  a  sin  to  tolerate  a 
false  religion,  &:c.  After  the  Revolution  in  this  country,  these 
"tenets,"  hitherto  held  as  "  having  been  revealed  by  Almighty  God," 
were  also  discarded  from  the  books,  as  being  unsuited  to  the  soil  of 
new-born  liberty  and  of  equal  rights.  The  Constitution  declared  that 
opinions  were  free,  and  should  not  be  proceeded  against  "  by  the 
civil  magistrate,"  that  he  should  suppress  no  heresy,  that  it  was 
no  sin  to  tolerate  a  "false  religion" — and  lo !  the  Confession  of 
Faith  is  forthwith  ameiided  so  as  to  suit  the  Constitution,  and  the 
new  order  of  things.  When  reminded  of  these  several  rejections  of 
what  God  had  revealed,  the  answer  is,  that  they  do  not  pretend 
to  be  infallible;  and  consequently  have  a  right  to  change  and 
modify  their  creed  when  they  find  it  wrong.     But  the  question  is 

:i7 


290 

which  of  their  creeds  is  right?  May  they  not  discover  that  they 
are  now  in  error,  and  recall  the  doctrines  of  the  magistrate's 
power,  and  of  the  sin  of  tolerating  a  false  religion  ?  They  may. 
And  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  they  will,  when  it  can  be  done 
with  safety.     Whence  I  argue, — 

That  any  religion  which  maintains  as  a  doctrine  the  right  to 
resume  its  intolerance,  whenever  the  civii  power  is  prepared  for 
it,  is,  in  this  respect,  dangerous  to  the  civil  and  religious  liberty  of 
other  denominations. 

But  the  Presbyterian  religion  teaches  this  right  as  a  doctrine. 
Therefore  this  religion  is  opposed  to  the  civil  and  religious  liberty 
of  other  denominations.     Third  argument. 

As  it  exists  at  this  time,  and  in  this  country,  Presbyterianism 
is  in  a  false  position.  It  embodies  in  its  composition  all  the 
essence  of  persecution,  and  yet,  awed  by  the  genius  of  the  coun- 
try, it  is  compelled  to  do  violence  to  its  nature,  and  profess  that 
liberality  which  it  does  not  feel  and  cannot  practise.  But  let 
such  a  change  of  political  circumstances  arise  as  will  authorize 
another  revision  and  correction  of  its  doctrines,  and  the  scenes  of 
other  days  will  be  renewed,  supported  by  a  new  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  texts  of  Scripture.  Richard  will  be  himself  again. 
The  "  ordinance  of  magistracy"  may  be  revived,  and  days  of 
humiliation  and  prayer  appointed  for  the  sin  of  having  ever 
abandoned  it.  Under  the  sanction  of  this  "  ordinance,"  whipping, 
cutting  off  the  ears,  hanging,  may  again  be  introduced,  as  they 
were  practised  in  New  England,  which  was  always  remarkable 
for  its  love  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  (1) 

Before  going  farther,  it  may  be  proper  to  expose  a  sophism,  of 
which  the  gentleman  has  more  than  once  attempted  to  avail  him- 
self. It  consists  in  denying  that  the  colonies  of  New  England 
were  Presbyterians,  and  this  for  no  other  reason  except  that  he 
must  be  ashamed  of  professing  a  religion  which  sanctions  their 
deeds  of^blood  and  persecution.  ''They  were  Puritans,"  he  has 
said,  "  whereas  we  are  Presbyterians.^'^  -They  differed  only, 
however,  in  the  form  of  church  government,  and  not  in  the  doc- 
trines of  intolerance.  Both  agreed  in  holding  as  a  "  tenet  revealed 
by  Almighty  God,"  that  the  civil  magistrate  had  a  right  to  enforce 
the  observance  of  the  "  first,"  as  well  as  the  "  second  table  "  of 
the  decalogue.  Now  the  first  table  has  reference  to  the  worship 
of  God,  the  sanctification  of  his  name,  and  of  the  Sabbath-day. 
So  that  the  right  of  every  man  to  worship  Almighty  God,  according 
to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  is  contrary  to  all  that  was 
doctrine  among  Puritans  and  Presbyterians,  previous  to  the 
declaration  of  American  independence.  Their  doctrine  was  that 
he  had  a  right  to  worship  Almighty  God,  according  to  the  dictates 
of  the  civil  magistrate.     This  I  shall  have  abundant  occasion  to 

(1)  See  Backus's  History  of  the  Baptists,  yjussi?". 


291 

5?how  in  the  sequel  of  this  argument.  Consequently  then,  since 
both  hold  the  same  doctrine  on  all  tlie  points  that  are  essential  to 
this  question  ; — it  follows  that  tlie  pretended  difference, or  distinc- 
tion on  which  the  gentleman  claims  to  disown  the  Puritans,  is 
nugatory.  We  shall  find  that  in  both  denominations  it  produced 
the  same  blood-stained  fruits. 

The  plan  of  civil  and  religious  government  contemplated  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian,  and  indeed,  all  the  Calvinistic  sects, 
is  a  coalition  and  consolidation  of  church  and  state.  Geneva  was 
the  model.  The  clergy  were  to  constitute  the  legislative  body 
and  the  judiciary,  in  all  matters  appertaining  to  doctrine,  worship, 
and  "  the  power  of  godliness."  The  civil  magistrate  was  to  be 
the  executive,  the  mere  constable  of  the  church.  Neither  let  it 
be  supposed  that  Presbyterians  have  yet  relinquished  this  danger- 
ous doctrine.  The  present  Confession  of  Faith  tells  us,  that 
although  the  civil  magistrates  may  not,  "interfere  in  matters  of 
faith,  yet,  as  nursing  fathers,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  civil  magis- 
trates to  protect  the  church  of  our  common  Lord,  without  giving  the 
preference  to  any  denomination  of  Christians,  above  the  rest,"  &;c. 
This  last  clause  is  put  in  as  a  salvo  ad  captandum  ; — for  the  gentle- 
man has  made  amends  for  his  want  of  charity,  by  his  abundant 
candour  in  admitting  that,  according  to  Presbyterian  doctrine, 
Catholics,  Quakers,  Unitarians,  and  I  know  not  how  many  other 
sects,  are  excluded  from  the  meaning  of  the  words,  "church  of 
our  common  Lord,"  and  consequently,  excluded  from  the  protec- 
tion which  the  "  nursing  fathers"  are  bound  to  afford.  But  I 
fear  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which  is  better  authority,  cuts  off  a 
few  other  denominations.  Li  page  3,  it  tells  us  that  the  "visible 
church consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world,  that  pro- 
fess the  true  religion;  together  with  their  children;  and  is  the 
kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God, 
out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation.''^ 
Whence  it  follows  that  those  who  do  not  "profess"  the  true 
religion,"  do  not  belong  to  the  "  church  of  our  common  Lord," 
and  are  not  of  the  happy  few  whom  it  is  the  duty  of  the  civil  magis- 
trates, as  "  nursing  fathers,"  to  protect.  Now  the  "  true  religion," 
according  to  Presbyterian  belief,  consists  in  the  doctrines  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament; — and  the  book  called  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  "  contains  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures." (1)  Here  then  the  profession  of  the  true  religion  is  made 
to  consist  in  the  profession  of  the  Presbyterian  religion.  And 
since  the  profession  of  the  true  religion,  alias  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  with  all  its  doctrine  of  fatalism,  under  the 
caption  of  "  God's  eternal  decree,"  constitutes  the  "church  of 
our  common  Lord,"  "  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibili- 
ty of  salvation,"  it  follows  that  these  who  do  not  hold  the  system 

(1)  Page  378. 


292 

of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  have  no  title  to  tlie 
protection  of  the  civil  magistrates,  as  not  being  included  in  the 
"church  of  our  common  Lord,"  which  turns  out  to  be  nothing 
more  than  the  Presbyterian  church.  To  reduce  the  matter  into 
a  more  condensed  form,  it  may  be  stated  in  the  following  pro- 
positions : 

Any  religion  whicli  tcaclies,  as  a  doctrine,  that  the  civil  ma- 
gistrates, in  these  United  States,  arc  bound,  '•  as  nursing  fathers," 
to  protect  the  church  of  one  sect,  or  of  a  specific  number  of  sects, 
under  pretext  that  it,  or  they  alone,  constitute  the  "  church  of 
our  common  Lord,"  to  the  exclusion  of  other  denominations,  is 
adverse  to  the  constitution  of  the  country,  and  dangerous  to  civil 
and  religious  liberty.     This  proposition  is  self-evident. 

But  the  Presbyterians,  as  has  been  shown,  by  the  foregoing 
facts,  and  reasoning,  holds  this  doctrine  : 

Therefore,  the  Presbyterian  religion  is  opposed,  in  this  respect, 
and  dangerous  to  the  civil  and  religious  rights  of  other  denomi- 
nations.    Fourth  argument. 

Let  this  doctrine  be  carried  out,  and  you  will  see  the  magis- 
trates of  your  republic  converted  into  dry  nurses  of  Presby- 
terianism,  the  President  dandling  the  baby  on  his  knee,  and 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  gathering  pap  for  it.  The  vision 
is  enchanting  enough,  as  it  recalls  the  palmy  days  of  the  church, 
when,  at  her  bidding,  the  magistrates  of  Geneva,  Holland,  Scotland, 
England,  maintained  the  "  power  of  (Presbyterian)  godliness,"  by 
the  power  of  the  sword.     Still  it  is  but  a  vision. 

All  other  denominations,  with  whose  doctrines  I  am  acquainted, 
hold,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  civil  magistrates  to  administer  the 
constitutional  laws  of  the  country,  in  justice  and  mercy,  leaving 
"the  church  of  our  common  Lord"  to  protect  itself.  "The 
church  of  our  common  Lord"  is  a  thing  unknown  to  the  Consti- 
tution; that  instrument  guarantees  the  protection  of  citizens, 
leaving  them  at  full  liberty  to  choose  their  religion  unbiassed  by 
political  preferences,  extended  to  one  sect  more  than  another. 
The  orthodoxy  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  is  fully  admitted  by 
the  denomination  to  which  the  gentleman  belongs.  And  the  anti- 
constitutional  doctrine,  of  the  duty  of  magistrates,  which  is  cun- 
ningly enough  disguised  in  the  Westminster  Confession,  is  openly 
and  honestly  stated  in  the  creed  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  brethren, 
where  it  is  taught,  that  the  "  office"  of  the  civil  magistrates  is  . . . 
"  that  they  protect  the  sacred  ministry;  and  thus  may  remove  and 

prevent  all  idolatry  and  false  worship wherefore,  we 

detest  the  Anabaptists  and  other  seditious  people,  and  in  general  all 

those  who  reject  the  higher  powers,  and  magistrates "  (1) 

This  coincidence  of  intolerant  doctrine  accounts  for  the  fact,  that 


(1)  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  North  America. 
New  York,  1819. 


293 

the  politico-religious  excitement  which  is  now  raging  against  the 
Catholics,  lias  been  mainly  stimulated  by  the  fiery  harangues  and 
writings  of  certain  fanatical  or  malevolent  preachers,  of  these  two 
denominations.  They  endeavour  to  enlist  the  passions  of  other 
sects  of  Protestants,  in  the  nefarious  attempt  to  put  down  the 
adherents  of  that  religion,  which  they  impudently  term  of  anti- 
Christ.  But  let  their  credulous  allies  not  be  deceived  ;  the  same 
warrant  of  Revelation  which  authorizes  them  to  do  this,  makes  it 
equally  incumbent  on  them  to  put  down  "  all  false  worship," 
and  to  ''^detest  the  Anabaptists." 

The  gentleman  takes  credit  to  his  cause,  on  the  ground,  that,  in 
this  country,  Presbyterians  have  not  persecuted  since  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence.  If  he  means  that  they  have  not  put  men 
to  death  or  prison,  for  the  crime  of  Avorshipping  God  according  to 
the  dictates  of  their  conscience,  I  admit  the  truth  of  his  observation. 
But  I  ascribe  the  happy  circumstance  to  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States,  and  to  the  buoyant  energies  of  young  Ameri- 
can liberty  and  liberality.  The  American  eagle,  which  has  ho- 
vered over  the  equal  rights  of  all  denominations,  both  civil  and 
religious,  would  have  picked  the  eyes  out  of  the  sect  that  should 
liave  dared  to  execute  the  work  of  religious  persecution.  But  let 
the  hand  of  Presbyterian  intolerance  only  succeed  to  pluck  only 
one  feather  out  of  the  noble  bird's  wing;  and  its  pinions  will  soon 
be  broken,  and  a  cage  found  for  it  by  the  General  Assembly.  The 
church  will  become  the  guardian  of  "  civil  and  religious  liberty," 
and  the  civil  magistrates  will  become  the  "  nursing  fathers"  of  the 
Church. 

It  might  be  supposed  by  those  who  are  unacquainted  with  the 
subject,  that  these  observations  are  made  without  regard  to  facts 
that  warrant  them.  This  would  be  a  great  mistake.  It  was  said 
by  a  great  statesman,  Patrick  Henry,  that  the  light  which  should 
guide  our  course,  in  regard  to  the  future,  must  blaze  from  the 
lamp  of  experience.  And  on  this  subject,  what  does  experience 
teach?  Open  the  history  of  Presbyterianism  and  see.  If  the 
gentleman  can  show  me  an  instance,  in  the  history,  of  the  world, 
in  which  Presbyterians  did  not  invade  by  civil  penalties,  extend- 
ing in  most  cases  to  life  and  death,  (when  they  had  the  political 
power  to  do  so)  the  "  right  of  every  man  to  worship  God,  accord- 
ing to  tho  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,"  I  bind  myself  to 
give  up  the  argument.  Other  general  rules  have  exceptions, — 
this  has  none.  Let  him  name  one  instance.  I  challenge  him  to 
the  test. 


294 


« Is  the  Presbyterian  BeUgion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty .?" 


NEGATIVE  I.— MR.  BRECKINRIDGE. 

Mr.  President  : — 

It  would  seem  as  if  the  gentleman  had  determined  to  make  a 
deep  impression  on  your  pity,  if  not  on  your  reason,  in  the  intro- 
duction of  his  address.  It  is  surely  a  strong  indication  of  the  pro- 
gress of  truth,  and  human  freedom,  as  well  as  of  the  spirit  of  the 
age,  when  a  priest  of  Rome  is  heard  appealing  to  public  sympa- 
thy, under  any  circumstances.  We  may  truly  bless  God,  and 
take  courage,  when  we  compare  Rome,  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
making  the  earth  to  tremble  at  her  rebuke,  with  Rome,  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  calling  for  pity.  Rome  complaining  of  per- 
secution I  Sir,  Romanism  cannot  endure  free  inquiry.  It  is  al- 
ways, therefore,  either  ^' heresy'^  or  ^^ persecution,^^  to  question 
this  infallible  mother  of  churches,  and  mistress  of  nations.  It  is 
heresy,  iHn  power ;  persecution,  if  not.  But,  sir,  Roman  Catho- 
lics are  not  persecuted. 

It  is  a  custom  of  the  American  people  to  examine  everything. 
It  is  an  attribute  of  the  American  system,  to  reject  everything 
which  cannot  stand  the  test  of  an  examination  by  the  standard  of 
truth  and  right.  Rome  is  not  used  to  this.  She  cannot  stand  it. 
She  cries  out  against  it.  Hinc  illse  lachrymx.  Hence,  those  lu- 
gubrious cries  with  which  the  gentleman  moved  your  pity  at  the 
sorrows  of  that  poor  weak  people,  only  120,000,000  strong,  whom 
a  few  Presbyterian  ^^parsons^'  are  persecuting  to  death  !  No, 
Mr.  President,  the  "  origin"  of  this  question  is  not  truly  stated  by 
the  gentleman.  It  is  no  new  thing,  that  popery  and  liberty  have 
no  affinity,  or  love  for  each  other ;  and  it  is  natural  for  the  Ameri- 
can people  to  watch  narrowly  what  is  so  well  known  to  be  hostile 
to  the  rights  of  man.   • 

Well ;  it  had  been  observed,  with  some  solicitude  for  many 
years,  that  a  large  number  of  Jesuits,  (you  remember  how  sternly 
and  fondly  the  gentleman  has  defended  them,)  were  coming  into 
the  United  States  ;  some  in,  some  out  of  the  priesthood.  Talley- 
rand, (a  Jesuit,)  was  once  a  teacher  in  this  country !  Crowds  of 
such  were  seen  passing  with  other  goods  through  our  custom- 
houses into  the  bosom  of  the  nation — from  France,  Spain,  Ger- 
many, Portugal,  Italy,  and  Ireland.     The  Jesuits  were  known  to 


295 

be  the  most  subtle,  strongly  united,  and  numerous  body  of  Romish 
emissaries  ;  tlie  militia  of  the  Pope,  the  enemies  of  all  freedom ; 
who  had  ruled,  corrupted,  and  been  expelled  from  almost  every 
government  of  Europe;  and  having  recently  been  restored  to 
power  and  rank  by  the  Pope,  were  rapidly  extending  their  mis- 
sions to  the  New  World,  and  to  this  garden  of  it. 

Again:  The  emigration  to  this  from  Roman  Catholic  countries, 
was  observed  to  be  immense;  and,  with  many  honourable  excep- 
tions, this  population  was  confessedly  the  most  ignorant,  unruly, 
and  vicious  in  the  country;  and,  also,  very  much  devoted  to 
popery. 

Again  :  It  was  seen  that  European  despots  were  deeply  inter- 
ested, and  published,  in  the  annual  reports  of  organized  societies, 
as  patrons  of  plans  to  send  priests  and  Catholic  emigrants  to  the 
United  States  :  (witness  the  Leopold  foundation  of  which  I  have 
largely  spoken  already,  headed  by  Prince  Metternich,  sending 
vast  sums  of  money  to  America  to  spread  Catholicity :)  and  this 
was  done  in  connexioi  with  the  periodical  visits  to  Europe  of 
American  Roman  Catiolic  prelates ;  as,  for  example.  Bishop 
England's  late  tour. 

Roman  Catholic  poliicians  also  in  Europe,  had  avowed  alike 
their  enmity  to  our  institutions,  and  the  fear  of  their  influence  on 
the  European  system  ofdespotism. 

A  high  officer  in  the  Austrian  government,  Schlegel,  had  said, 
in  his  Lectures  on  the  Philosophy  of  History,  {I)  "  That  the 

REAL  NURSERY  OF  ALL  TIESE  DESTRUCTIVE  PRINCIPLES,  THE  REVO- 
LUTIONARY SCHOOL  OF  Fiance,  and  the  rest  of  Europe,  [Poland, 
Belgium,  Holland,  he  nanaes]  had  been  North  America  !  !'* 

And  still  more.  We  lad  been  warned  by  writers,  especially 
Frenchmen,  who  have  nost  freedom  of  all  the  Catholic  states, 
that  the  priesthood  of  Rone  would  destroy  our  liberties,  if  they 
prevailed  in  America.  D3  Pradt,  who  had  certainly  once  been  a 
Catholic,  and  an  Abbe,  one  of  the  first  writers  and  politicians  in 
Europe,  has  thus  warned  us  :  "  In  Ireland,  Holland,  and  the 
United  States,  (Rome)  does  everything  by  apostolical  vicars,  as 
in  the  countries  of  missions.  This  regime  pleases  Rome  ;  for  it 
gives  her  the  means  of  being  mistress  everywhere.  The  clergy 
OF  THE  United  States,  like  that  of  Ireland,  is  very  devoted  to 
the  Pope.  It  is  very  rigorous.  In  time  it  will  give  embarrass- 
ment TO  the  United  States,  as  that  of  Ireland  does  to  the 
British  government."  (2) 

All  these,  connected  with  an  unparalleled  zeal  for  proselytism, 
and  a  daily  augmenting  arrogance,  and  self-consequence  among  the 
priests,  awakened  the  simultaneous  attention  of  American  citizens, 
politicians,  and  Christians ;  and,  at  the  same^time,  American  Epis- 

(1)  Lecture  XVII.,  Vol.  II.  p.  286. 

(2)  Modern  Jesuitism,  p.  305. 


296 

copalians,  Baptists,  Methodists,  and  Coiigrej^ationalists,  as  well  as 
Prcsl)yterians,  without  collusion,  by  the  call  of  these  concurrent 
events  and  disclosures,  began  to  inquire  "  ivhat  can  this  mean?'' 
it  is  wholly  false,  however,  that  this  coincidence  was  by  concert^ 
as  the  Rev.  gentleman  has  said.  For,  even  supposing  that  these 
various  and  powerful  Christian  denominations  could  be  thought 
capable  of  a  concerted,  simultaneous  attack  of  the  sort,  "  in  New 
York,  Ohio,  Kentucky,  and  the  Eastern  s;ates,"  it  is  hardly 
likely  that  they  would  have  joined  in  "a  dark  conspiracy — to 
make  the  Presbyterian  Church  the  dominant  religion  of  the  coun- 
try ;''  ....  and  "  under  the  pretence  of  a  regard/or  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty,  rob  the  Catholics  of  both?' 

And  then,  as  to  the  respectable  Society  before  which  we  appear, 
I  hardly  suppose  the  young  gentlemen  will  feel  much  flattered  by 
the  charge  of  "being  employed,"  "  though  not  knowingly,"  "  as 
tools  in  the  hands  of  a  combination  of  bigotry  and  malice."  For 
myself,  sir,  the  first  intimation  that  I  ever  bad  of  the  existence  of 
this  Society,  was  after  the  question  "  On  Civil  and  Religious 
Liberty'"  had  been  brought  up,  and  debate!  for  at  least  one  night; 
and  after  the  Rev.  gentleman  had  participited  in  the  discussion. 
It  was  in  consequence  of  that  very  appearmce  of  his,  at  this  Hall, 
that  I  was  asked  to  attend  and  meet  him  (a  week  after,)  i)i  case 
he  should  finally  consent  to  debate  again,  This  was  on  Friday, 
when  I  was  on  the  eve  of  a  journey  to  N(w  York.  On  the  next 
Wednesday  I  received  official  notice  that  Mr.  Hughes  had  com- 
mitted himself  to  appear  again.  Then  itwas,  that  I  addressed  to 
him  the  letter  which  he  has  so  ungenerously  tried,  (though  iu 
vain,)  to  distort  into  a  contradiction.  Al/  I  intended  to  say,  in  a 
hurried  letter,  written  in  a  sick  chambef,  was  this :  that  having 
just  been  officially  assured  of  his  pledged  appearance  in  the  dis- 
cussion, (what  he  had  promised  before  what  the  Society  hoped 
he  would,  and  I  feared  he  would  not  doi)  I  then,  and  thus  agreed 
to  meet  him  on  the  pending  question.  What  motive  had  I  to  af- 
fect ignorance  of  his  intention?  I  had, for  more  than  a  year,  pub- 
licly, by  a  standing  call,  invited  him  tc  an  oral  discussion.  He 
had  all  this  time  declined,  after  having  abruptly  and  })ertinaciously 
closed  a  former  written  discussion  with  me ;  and  left  me  to  carry 
it  on  alone.  You  lately  had  a  specimen  of  the  gentleman's  reso- 
lution in  debate — when  this  Society  eamestly  and  unanimously 
requested  us  to  add  two  evenings  to  each  of  the  questions,  that  the 
important  subjects  involved  might  be  fuliy  examined;  yet  against 
our  united  entreaties,  he  did  most  heroically  and  zealously  refuse. 
The  gentleman  is  a  great  admirer  of  thit  prudent  adage — "  The 
better  part  of  valour  is  discretion ;"  and  if  ever  he  redeem  his 
pledge  to  finish  and  publish  this  debate : — if  he  do  not  make  rea- 
sons to  decline  it,  to  delay  it,  to  vitiate  it,  I  shall  be  both  surprised 
and  gratified. 

His  unhappy  grudge  against  my  gallant  and  able  friend,  the 


297 

Rev.  Mr.  M'Calla,  who  sometimes  attends  this  debate,  is  easily 
divined  by  those  who  witnessed  their  late  meeting  in  this  place. 
The  Rev.  gentleman  is  so  much  disturbed  by  his  presence,  that  I 
shall  be  constrained  to  beg  him  to  leave  the  house — or  at  least  to 
require  him  to  turn  his  eyes  away  from  my  friend ;  and  especially 
to  drop  not  an  arrow  into  my  quiver. 

Let  me  add,  on  these  preliminary  matters  on  which  the  gentle- 
man has  so  largely  dwelt,  that  it  was  natural,  manly,  seasonable, 
and  American,  for  these  young  gentlemen  to  bring  up  this  ques- 
tion; and  th-e  promptitude  with  which  all  the  parties  interested 
have  agreed  to  examine  (at  Mr.  Hughes's  request)  the  relation  of 
Presbyterian  principles  to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  proves  alike 
the  liberality  and  justice  of  the  Society,  and  the  fearless  candour 
and  confidence  of  Presbyterians  in  the  goodness  of  their  cause.  It 
puts  to  shame  also  the  gentleman's  cr?/  of  persecution  ;  for  if  dis- 
cussions of  charges  against  Romanism  constitute  persecution,  and 
intend  the  destruction  of  Roman  Catholic  rights,  then,  when  the 
name  shall  be  changed  to  Presbyterian,  will  it  not  be  equally  true 
o{  Presbyterians  and  their  I'ights?  Do  the  gentleman's  attacks 
on  Presbyterians,  intend  the  destruction  of  their  rights  ?  Does  he 
intend  to  persecute  them  ?  He  first  appeared  in  the  debate  !  He 
proposed,  nay,  urged,  as  a  condition,  the  discussion  of  Presby- 
terianism !  Will  he  say  it  is  retaliation?  or  self-defence?  But 
the  Society  is  not  Presbyterian ?  it  is  of  no  sect;  and  numbers 
many  Catholics  who  consented  to  the  original  question;  nay, 
aided  to  adopt  it.  No,  sir ;  we  understand  this  cant ;  and  it  comes 
with  an  ill  grace  from  a  priest  of  the  Vatican,  holding  allegiance  to 
the  author  of  the  crusades,  and  the  mistress  of  the  inquisition, 
"  drunk  with  the  blood  of  saints." 

The  gentleman  has  attempted  to  excite  the  public  mind  against 
"  Presbyterians" — on  the  ground,  that  they  were  indiscriminately 
attacking  ^^ foreigners. ^^  Sir,  no  men  feel  more,  or  do  more  for 
deserving  "  foreigners"  than  Presbyterians.  Does  the  gentleman 
forget  their  sympathies  and  co-operation  in  the  memorable  case  of 
the  exiled  Poles — those  injured,  noble  men  ?  Have  we. not  hailed 
them,  and  loved  them,  and  helped  them,  as  the  peculiar  objects  of 
the  public  care,  as  the  orphans  of  the  nation?  It  is  only  the  cor- 
rupt, degraded,  intractable,  that  we  fear.  Beside  what  has  been 
said  before,  let  me  subjoin  that  this  is  a  topic  on  which  the  wise 
and  good  of  all  names,  sects,  and  parties,  both  secular  and  reli- 
gious, even  now  tremble  ;  and  our  various  state  sovereignties  are 
wisely  beginning  to  make  provision  against  the  immense  evils 
which  threaten  from  that  quarter.  Mr.  Jefferson,  whom  the  gen- 
tleman loves  to  quote  in  garbled  extracts  against  Presbyterians, 
long  ago  lifted  up  his  warning  voice,  saying,  in  his  Notes  on 
Virginia — "  To  these  [the  principles  of  our  government]  nothing 
can  be  more  Opposed  than  the  maxims  of  absolute  monarchies. 
Yet  from  such  we  are  to  expect  the  greatest  number  of  emigrants. 

38 


29S 

Tliey  will  bring  tvith  them  the  principles  of  the  governments  they 
have  imbibed  in  their  early  youth;,  or  if  able  to  throiv  them  off, 
it  will  be  in  exchange  for  an  unhounded  Ucenliousness,  passing, 
as  is  usual,  Irom  one  extreme  to  another  .  .  . ; In  propor- 
tion to  their  numbers,  they  iv ill  share  with  ics  the  legislation. 
They  will  infuse  into  it  their  spirit,  tvarp  cmd  bias  its  directions, 
and  render  it  a  heterogeneous,  incoherent,  distracted  mass." 
Wlven  we  add  to  this  almost  prophetic  language,  (whose  fulfil- 
ment  is  now  daily  transpiring  before  our  eyes,  in  all  our  large 
cities,)  the  fact,  that  so  many  of  the  emigrants  come  from  papai 
countries,  and  bring  with  them,  or  meet  here,  Jesuit  priests,  whc 
are  ex  oflicio  monarchists,  and  stifle;  as  it  rises  in  the  bosom  of 
tlie  people,  the  love  of  liberty,  we  may  well  be  excused  for  a  wise 
fear  of  impending  danger  to  our  free  institutions. 

I  fear,  sir,  you  are  already  impatient  at  these  prefatory  matters ; 
yet,  as  the  gentleman  has  introduced  them,  I  must  meet  them. 
As  to  the  charge  of  following  "  Faber"  in  falsifying  the  decrees, 
&c.  of  the  church,  I  refer  this  body  to  my  full  exposure  of  these 
slanders  on  a  previous  evening ;  and  to  the  several  reversed  cases, 
in  which  I  convicted  him  of  falsifying  me,  and  of  garbling  divers 
authorities  to  suit  his  own  purposes. 

And  then  as  to  the  rules :  I  agreed  to  use  the  decree  of  a  Gene- 
ral  Council,  the  brief  or  bull  of  a  Pope,  the  Catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  and  the  admitted  doctrines  of  a  pope,  in  proof; 
it  being  understood  that  each  party  was  to  prove  that  what  was 
used  was  a  doctrine.     I  appeal  to  the  train  of  my  arguments,  and 
to  the  decision  of  the  chair,  already  given,  whether  1  have  violated 
these  rules.     The  Rev.  gentleman  agreed  that  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  under  the  care 
of  the   General  Assembly  in  the   United  States,  should  be  his 
source  of  proof.     Yet  you   will   perceive,  from   every   allusion 
almost  which  he  makes,  that  he  is  perfectly  reckless  as  to  this 
rule.     The   gentleman   has   an   intermittent  sensibility   of  con- 
science about  the  rules,  which  fluctuates,-  with  amusing  alternacy, 
from  one  side  to  the  other.     When  we  were  probing  the  Ro- 
man hierarchy,  he  was  often  crying  aloud  for  "  rules^^ — '*  rules.^^ 
Now,  while  he  charges  me  with  deviation,  what  does  he  do? 
I  offered  him  the  broad  question  of  Protestantism,  as  exhibited  in 
the  twelve  creeds  issued  at  the  Reformation.     He  refused;   and 
chose  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  its  Confession  of  Faith,  as 
held  by  us.     I  agreed  joyfully  to  that  selection;  and  so  the  rules 
fixed  it.     Yet  now  we  find  him  running  for  proof  to  the  congre- 
tional  churches  of  New  England,  and  then  to  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church;   and  then  to  tlie  Covenantors;    and  then  to  the  churches 
of  Scotland,  Holland,  England,  Geneva,  &c. !     Now,  it  is  true, 
that  all  these  churches  are,  or  were,  Calvinistic— -as  we  shall  pre- 
sently see;  and  most  of  them  are  Presbyterian.     But  it  is  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  under  the  government  of  the 


299 

General  Asfiemhly  in  Ihc  United  Sftifcs,  tliat  lie  Qtrrcoil  to  con- 
fine himself.  Here  lie  linds  scarcely  a  point  on  which  to  alight: 
therefore  he  goes  to  other  communions  and  other  continents. 
For  example,  he  charges  Presbyterians  with  l)urning-  "  the  Con- 
vent.^^  Now  the  charge  is  too  base  to  be  replied  to — in  the  name 
of  our  Protestant  brethren  of  Massachusetts.  But  there  is  not  a. 
Presbyterian  Church,  nor,  as  far  as  I  know,  member,  within  ten 
miles  square  of  Boston.  It  is,  therefore,  not  "  a  sophisni,^^  as 
•the  gentleman  says,  but  '■'' a  truism, '^^  that  "the  New  England 
colonies  were  not  Presbyterian,"  and  their  descendants  are  not — 
though  nearly  allied  to  them  in  their  general  principles,  and  in 
the  noble  love  of  liberty  and  divine  truth. 

It   may   be   as    proper   here,    as   any   where,  to   say   that   the 
American  churches  (we  mean  of  course  Protestant)   stand  in  a 
very  peculiar  relation  to  their  European  progenitors.    The  Euro- 
pean  Protestant   Churches   are   Protestant  in   regard   to  Rome. 
The  American  Protestant  Churches  are  so  in   respect  of  estab- 
lished religions,  as  well  as  in  regard  to  Pome.     This  peculiarity 
exists  in   North  America  alone.     For  example :   in  England,  the 
Episcopal  Church  is  established  by  law ;  in  Scotland,  the  Pres- 
byterian.    But   in   this   country,    no   American   Presbyteiian   or 
Episcopalian  can  approve  of  those  establishments ;  nor  are  these 
c}[\\^rc\\es  branches  ol  the  parent  stock  in  this  respect;    nor  can 
they  tolerate  or  have  any  fellowship  with  an  establishment  as 
^uch.     The   American  system  disclaims   all  force  as  a  means  of 
preserving  unity,  and  as  a  means  of  maintaining  and  extending 
'  the  visible  church.     We  deny  and  reject  the  right  of  the  civil 
magistrate  to  legislate  for  the  conscience.     That  is  the  "preroga- 
tive of  God  alone.     Nor  has  the  majority  the  right  to  do  it  for 
the  minority.     American  Protestant  Christians,  as  citizens,  have 
declared  this  to  be  their  system  in  their  American  constitutions; 
and,r  with  equal  explicitness,  in  their  creeds  and  public  formula- 
ries.    In  this  the   Presbyterian  Church  has  ever  held  a  most  con- 
spicuous position,  and   taken  a  decided  part.     The  pages  of  our 
standards  stare  the  gentleman  full  in  the  face,  and  bespeak  him  a 
slanderer,  in  a  hundred  paragraphs,  where  he  declares  the  reverse. 
Thus,(l)  it  is  thus  written: — "  They  (that  is  Presbyterians) 
are  unanimously  of  opinion,  that  God  alone  is  Lord  of  tJie  con- 
science', and  hath  left  it  free  from  the  doctrine  and  commandments 
of  men,  which  are  in  any  thing  contrary  to  his  word,  or  beside  it 
in  matters  of  faith  and  worship:  therefore,  they  consider  the  rights 
of  private  judgment,  in  all  matters  that  respect  religion,  as  ?(ni- 
versal  and  unalienable ;   the}'  do  not  even  wish  to  see  any  reli- 
gious constitution,  aided  by  the  civil  power,  further  than  may  be 
necessary  for  protection  and  security,  and,  at  the  same  time,  ce 

jBQUAL  AND  COMMON  TO  ALL  OTHERS. 

(1)  On  page  343,  Form  of  Government,  Chap  I.  Sect.  1, 


300 

Again  ;(1)  clin}  magistrates  may  not  assume  to  themselves  the 
aiimwisfralion  of  the  word  and  sacraments;  or  the  power  of  the 
keyii  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  or,  in  the  least ,  interfere  in  mat- 
ters of  faith.     Yet,  "  as  nursing  fathers, "(2)  it  is  the  duty  of  civil 
Hiagistiates  to  protect  the  church  of  our  couimon  Lord,  without 
givuig  the  preference  to  any  denomination  of  Christians  above 
the  rest,  in  such  a  manner,  that  all  ecclesiastical  persons  what- 
ever shall  enjoy  the  full,  free,  and  unquestioned  liberty  of  dis- 
charging every  part  of  their  sacred  functions,  without  violence 
or   danger.     And,    as    Jesus    Christ   hath   appointed  a  regular 
government  and  discipline  in  his  church,  no  law  of  any  com- 
monwealth should  interfere  zvith,  let,  or  hinder,  the  due  exercise 
thereof,  among  the  voluntary  members  of  any  denomination  of 
Christians,  according  to  their  own  profession  and  belief.     It  is 
the  duty  of  civil  magistrates  to  protect  the  person  and  good  name 
of  all  their  people,  in  such  an  effectual  manner  as  that  no  person 
be  sufl'ered,  either  upon  pretence  of  religion  or  infidelity,  to  offer 
any  indignity,  violence,  abuse  or  injury  to   any  other  person 
whatsoever ;  and  to  take  order,  that  all  religious  and  ecclesiastical 
assemblies    be    held  without    molestation  or   disturbance.  ''This 
covers  all;  no  less  Catholics,  than  Protestants;  and,  it  is  pro- 
tection, not  MERELY  TOLERATION." 

Here  are  surely  some  pretty  explicit  declarations — of  the  full 
and  equal  rights  of  all  denominations — and  the  utter  rejection  of 
all  establishments.  And  this  is  the  general  position  of  the  Ame- 
rican Protestant  Churches.  .  This  is  the  American  system — Ame- 
rican Protestantism  ;  or,  more  properly  speaking,  a  return  to  that 
position  in  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  left  the  church,  and 
which  she  maintained  while  she  continued  in  the  purity  of  the 
faith,  and  until  corrupted  by  union  with  the  state. 

Now,  if  the  gentleman  will  show  me  one  such  principle  in  all 
his  creeds,  decrees,  missals,  bulls,  briefs  and  canons,  I  will  own 
that  he  is  right,  and  I  am  wrong.  Let  us  for  a  moment  inquire 
.  how  all  this  is  with  respect  to  Rome.  The  gentleman  says  his 
church  is  infallible  and  unclumg cable:  the  same,  therefore,  in 
Rome,  Spain  and  North  America.  Protestant  American  churches 
have  denounced  and  divorced  the  alliance  of  church  and  state. 
They  have  adopted  American  principles.  But  American  Papists 
change  not.  They  cannot  change.  Therefore,  the  genius  of  the 
church,  and  the  institutions  of  the  church,  here,  and  in  Europe, 
are  the  same.  Tiie  Pope,  their  spiritual  head,  is  the  temporal 
head  of  a  state;  a  monarch;  elected  by  cardinals,  that  popes 
appoint.  //  is  church  and  state  united;  and  all  priests,  and  all 
papists,  owe  allegiajice  to  this  monarch  of  spiritual  and  temporal 

(1.)  Pages  105,  106,  Of  the  Civil  Magistrate,  Chap.  XXITL,  Sect.  3. 
(2)  And  kings  shall  be  thy  nursing  fathers,  and  their  queens  thy  nursing 
mothers. — Isaiah,  chap,  xlix.,  ver.  23. 


301 

things  mixed;  and  are  under  this  universal  head.  And  that  said 
head,  the  Pope,  in  his  iTif^t- universal  circular^  thus  writes: — 
*'  Nor  can  we  augur  more  consoling  consequences  to  religion  and 
to  government,  from  the  zeal  of  some  to  separate  the  church 

FROM    THE    STATE  ;    AND    TO    BURST    THE    BOND    WHICH    UNITES    THE 

PRIESTHOOD  TO  THE  EMPIRE.  For  it  is  clear  that  this  union  is 
dreaded  by  the  profane  lovers  of  liberty,  only  because  it  has 
never  failed  to  confer  prosperity  on  both.^'  Here  it  is  plain  that 
the  Pope  declares  it  profane  to  sunder  this  tie.  He  honestly 
announces  a  papal  doctrine;  and  no  consistent  Catholic  can 
decline  the  authority  announcing,  or  the  principle  promulgated. 

Again,  he  says,  "  May  this  our  zeal  for  the  welfare  of  religion 
and  public  order ^  (we  see  what  he  considers  '  established  order 
in  a  state')  acquire  aid  and  authority  from  the  princes,  our 
dearest  sons  in  Christ,  who,  let  them  reflect ,  have  received  their 
power,  not  merely  for  their  temporal  rule,  but  chiefly  for  the 
protection  of  the  CHURCH."  If,  because  Dr.  Ely,  the  clerk 
(not  the  secretary  of  state)  of  the  General  Assembly,  in  his 
private  capacity,  being  a  busy,  loquacious  man,"  talked  about 
"  a  Christian  party  in  politics,'^  the  Presbyterian  Church  is 
accused  by  Mr.  Hughes  of  aiming  at  an  establishment ;  then  what 
will  he  say  to  this  official  and  direct  avoival  of  the  propriety  and 
necessity  of  an  establishment,  by  the  reigning  Pope !  And,  if  we 
are  to  be  charged  with  holding  to  a  theocracy,  because,  as  Isaiah 
said,  so  say  we,  rulers  should  be  nursing  fathers^'  to  the  church, 
what  will  the  gentleman  do  with  the  Pope's  avowal,  that  the  pro- 
tection of  the  Catholic  Church  is  the  chief  end  of  rulers,  and  that 
the  Pope  is  the  father  of  ^^  princes,  his  dearest  sons?" 

The  result  is  clearly  this,  that  the  Church  of  Home,  every 
where,  is  one,  and  unchangeable;  that,  at  Rome,  it  not  only 
courts,  but  enjoins  the  union  of  church  and  state ;  and  that,  there- 
fore, what  the  head  and  centre  holds,  the  branch  holds  also  in  this 
land;  and,  hence,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  America  is  anti- 
American,  anti-liberal ;  and,  in  order  to  take  the  right,  or  the  safe 
ground,  and  to  secure  the  confidence  of  the  American  people, 
American  Catholics  must  declare. themselves  independent  of  Rome ; 
and  change  their  doctrines  on  the  subject  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty. 

Again;  it  follows,  from  the  above  exposition,  that  whatever 
principles  or  practices  the  gentleman  may  have  found  in  European 
Presbyterians  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  yet  they 
attach  not  to  American  Presbyterians.  That  some  such  things 
existed,  we  own ;  we  regret  them ;  we  denounce  them.  They 
were  learned  from  Rome;  they  were  only  as  a  "drop  in  the 
bucket"  compared  to  Rome.  But  they  are  not  ours;  and  the 
American  Presbyterian  Church  is  stainless  on  this  subject — both 
in  principle  and  practice. 

But,  the  gentleman  says,  we  were  forced  to  change:  as  fol- 


302 

lows,  viz. — "  Aflcr  the  revolution  in  this  country,  these  tenets 
(of  the  Westminster  Confession,  making  heresy  punishable  by 
law)  hitherto  held  as  having  been  revealed  by  Almighty  God, 
were  also  discarded,  as  being  unsuited  to  the  soil  of  new-born 
liberty  and  of  equal  rights." ,....."  The  Confession  of  Faith  is 
forthwith  amended  to  suit  the  constitution  and  the  new  order  of 
things."  *'  Presbyterianism,  awed  by  the  genius  of  the  country, 
is  compelled  to  do  violence  to  its  nature,  and  profess  that  liberality 
which  it  does  not  feel,  and  cannot  practice."  These  truly  are 
fine  specimens  of  the  "  charity"  about  which  the  meek  and  loving 
man  preached,  with  so  much  pathos,  at  the  opening  of  his 
harangue.  But  observe ;  he  owns,  in  the  very  basis  of  the  argu- 
ment, that  our  Confession  is  now  right:  that  it  has  "  discarded"*^ 
its  objectionable  *^  tenets ;^^  and  stands  ^^  amended  to  suit  the 
constitution,  and  the  new  order  of  things. ''^  Very  well.  So  far 
it  is  good;  and,  by  his  own  confession,  right.  For  this  uncon- 
scious admission,  which  settles  the  question  in  dispute,  we  devoutly 
thank  him.  And  now,  if  Rome  will  only  change  too,  and  "  adapt 
herself  to  the  new  order  of  things,"  we  will  not  ask  her  why,  or 
abuse  her  for  the  blessed  "  amendment. "^^ 

But  again;  he  has  repeatedly  said  that  the  clause  in  our  Larger 
Catechism, (1)  which  "  requires  every  one,  according  to  his  place 
mid  calling,  to  remove  all  the  monuments  of  idolatry, ^\  is  a  per- 
secuting clause,  and  distinctly  points  to  force  against  the  papacy. 
He  also  charges  the   Reformed  Dutch  Church,  and  the  Cove- 
nanters, with  retahmig  persecuting  articles,  even  until  now.     If 
so,  how  does  it  happen  that  the  "  constitution"  did  not  force  a 
change  ?     Did  the  constitution  "  compel  us  to  do  violence  to  our 
nature,"  and  '*  amend  the  Coilfession  to  suit  the  new  order  of 
things  ?"     The  gentleman  says  so.     Then  there  can  be  no  perse- 
cution in  it!     But  he  says  there  is.     Then  we  did  not  do  what 
we  did,  in  the  way  of  change,   "  by  force,"  and  "  against  our 
nature;"  for  here,  he  says,  is  persecution  "  still.^'     Here  is  a  flat 
contradiction.    But  still  further.    The  changes  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith  were  made  before  the  adoption  of  the  American  "Constitution." 
The  men  that  legislated  and  fought  for  American  freedom— -for 
the  whole  term  of  the  American  war — they  were  the  men  who 
altered  one  or  two  clauses  in  the  Confession  of  their  Faith  before 
the  adoption  of  the  American  Constitution.     "  Father  Green,"  as 
the  gentleman  calls  him,  and  well  does  he  deserve  it  of  his  coun- 
try and  his  church,  carried  his  musket;  and,  as  a  chaplain,  in  the 
rebel  army,    preached    freedom-,    civil    and    religious.     And    the 
father  of  the  said  Dr.  Miller,  whose  heavy  bloivs  on  "  the  beast 
and  the  bull  that  has  turned  to  gore  us,"  make  him  so  hateful  to 
my  Reverend  friend;   I  say,  his  father  preached  freedom,  and 
rebellion,  as  Rome  would  call  it,  at  the  origin  of  the  revolution, 

(1)  Page  217,  Ans.  to  108  Ques. 


303 

Ask  the  country,  and  ask  the  American  army;  ask  the  British 
leaders,  where  the  Presbyterians  were?  How  they  felt?  How 
they  fought?  Ask  Tarlton !  Ask  the  American  Congress  how 
Washington  felt,  and  thought.  No,  sir.  There  was  no  force 
about  it.  The  American  (constitution  was  the  effect  oi  Puritan 
and  Presbyterian  love  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  as  much,  per- 
haps, as  of  any  other  cause;  and,  I  repeat  it,  our  present  Con- 
fession was  adopted  before  the  American  Constitution.  And,  until 
we  change  back,  by  the  gentleman's  own  logic,  we  are  "  suited 
to  the  new  order  of  things,"  which  we  helped,  with  all  our 
power,  under  God,  to  produce. 

We  pass,  as  it  is  here  in  place,  to  consider  the  gentleman's 
argument  from  the/«c^  of  the  change.  We  own  that  a  change  was 
necessary,  in  all  or  nearly  all  the  European  Protestant  Confessions 
on  the  point  of  establishinents,  and  of  religious  freedom.  We 
own  that  Presbyterians  of  Scotland,  Holland,  and  Geneva,  as  well 
as  Episcopalians  of  England,  and  Catholics  everywhere,  needed 
to  change  their  principles  on  the  right  of  the  civil  magistrate  to 
legislate  for  conscience.  We  Presbyterians  did  change  before 
the  American  Constitution  was  adopted.  Episcopalians  changed. 
Have  Catholics  ?  No.  The  gentleman  says  they  cannot.  Nay, 
he  argues  against  our  change.  He  says  "  may  they  not  discover 
that  they  are  now  in  error,  and  recall  the  doctrmes  of  the  magis- 
trate''s  poiver,  and  the  siii  of  tolerating  a  false  religion  .^"  .... 
They  do  not  pretend  to  be  infallibleJ'^ .  .  .  .-.  ."  There  is  reason 
to  believe  they  will  [change  back]  wlien  it  can  be  done  with  safety. ^^ 

Now  when  I  charged  Romanism  with  persecuting  what  it  calls 
''^ false  religions,'^  not  merely  to  the  "  cropping  of  ears"  but  by 
the  crusades  and  inquisitions  founded  on  decrees  of  councils  and 
bulls  of  popes,  destroying  many  millions  of  lives,  he  said  "  oh,  it 
WAS  ONLY  discipline"  "  not  doctrine."  How  does  it  come  that 
"  not  to  tolerate  a  false  religion'''  with  us  "is  doctrine  ?"  You 
see  his -consistency  I  But  to  the  argument.  If  we,  being  fallible, 
may  change  to  wrong,  when  right,  can  Catholics,  believing  them- 
selves infallible,  if  ivrong,  ever  become  right  ?  I  have  proved 
for  six  long  nights  of  unanswered  arguments,  that  in  doctrine  and 
discipline,  they  do  persecute,  and  ever  have  done  it.  Hence  they 
must  be  so  for  ever;  for  he  says  Xhey  cannot  change.  Therefore 
they  are  now  what  they  were  on  St.  Bartholomew's  night,  at  the 
Council  of  Constance,  in  the  crusades,  in  the  inquisition;  and 
they  are  in  .America,  what  they  are  in  Spain,  in  Portugal,  in  Goa, 
and  at  Rome.  Fatal  logic  to  the  gentleman's  cause  !  Yet  it  is  his 
own  reasoning.  Now  we  own  that  we  are  fallible,  and  therefore 
may  change.  But  we  claim  no  right  to  do  wrong.  We  claim 
no  right  to  change  to  a  renounced  error.  Till  we  change  we  are 
owned  by  him  to  be  right.  When  we  change  back  to  Rome's 
principles,  then  the  gentleman  will  love  us  more.  Till  then  the 
slanderous   charges  and  false  logic  of  the  gentleman,  will  be  es- 


■     304 

timated  on  the  same  standard  which  can  claim  infallibility  to  the 
worst  men  that  ever  cursed  the  earth;  and  which  glories  to  give 
eternity  to  error,  by  refusing  to  change  even  from  bad  to  good, 
from  wrong  to  right,  from  slavery  io  freedom. 

One  of  the  most  remarliable  instances  of  audacity  in  assertion, 
is  his  charging  a  "  tlieocracy''  on  Presbyterians,  and  ■"  indeed  on 
all  the  Calvinistic  sects."  I  knowjio  motive  for  this,  but  the 
advantage  of  "  callhig  hard  names,'' first.  Why,  sir,  the  whole 
system  of  popery  is  one  grand  consolidated  theocracy,  corrupting 
and  then  extending  the  Jeivish  system  to  the  whole  world.  Does 
not  the  pope  claim  to  be  "  father  of  princes,"  "  vicar  of  Christ,'' 
''head  of  the  Universal  Church,"  above  all  civil  power,  and  as 
we  have  showed  abundantly  on  the  previous  question,  "  a  god  on 
earth."  Even  the  famous  writer  Robinson,  (1)  adduced  by  the 
gentleman  against  Presbyterians,  says,  "The  canon  law  is  a 
body  of  high  treason  against  the  rights  and  consciences  of  man- 
kind." (2)  The  canon  law  is  Rome's  magna  charta.  He  says 
too,  (3)  "  The  pope' s  public  politiccd  end  was  to  be  the  absolute 
ruler  of  all  the  priesthood  ;  and  tJvrough  them  of  all  mankind." 
And  again  (4),  "  It  is  a  Jewish  Christianity ,  having  in  it  the 
seeds  of  a  hierarchy;"  "  they  sunk  ihe  people  to  elevate  the  order: " 
the  order  created  a  master  like  Aaron,"  &lc.',  and  again,  "  If  this 
dispute  had  been  only  about  the  right  of  wearing  bells  and  pome- 
granates, as  Aaron  had  done,  and  a  breast-plate  that  nobody  but  a 
Jew  could  read,  it  might  have  created  mirth,  but  it  took  a  very 
serious  turn  when  it  was  perceived  that  Jlaron  had  under  all  his 
fine  things,  a  knife  and  a  BLOOD-bason."  De  Pradt  says  "  Je- 
suitism is  EMPIRE  BY  RELIGION."  ....  "  The  general  of  the 
Jesuits  is  a  veritable  king."     The  Pope  is  master  of  the  general. 

He  says,  "  It  is  organized  intolerance." "  Who  is  chief 

of  this  immense  family,  this  militia  present  every  where?  The 
Pope.'    He  counts  more  subjects  than  any  sovereign;  more  than 

even  m,any  sovereigns  together." "if  the.  whole  world 

were  Catholic,  the  Pope  would  command  the  world." 

When  we  add  to  these  shocking  truths  that  the  Catholics  number 
120  millions,  and  have  one  and  only  one  common  centre,  and  boast 
of  their  unity  and  indivisibility,  and  commo7i  principles,  it  be- 
comes truly  terrific.  De  Pradt  says  "  Catholicism  is  not  organized 
like  other  worships.  The  latter  have  no  common  centre — 7io 
exclusive  source  form  ivhence  floivs  potoer  in  every  religious 
society.  Thky  have  no  Rome."  (5)  Protestants  are  incapable, 
if  they  would,  of  consolidation.  Catholics  cannot  exist  without 
it.  AVhen  it  ceases,  the  system  ceases.  When,  therefore,  the 
gentleman   talks  of  a  theocracy,  and   says  it  endangers  civil  and 

(1)  Eccles.  Researches.  (2)  Page  142. 

(3)  Page  163.  (4)  Page  121. 

(5)  See  Modern  Jesuitism,  passim. 


305 

erligious  liberty,  wc  wonder  at  his  temerity ;  we  rejoice  in  his 
admissions;  and  turn  his  principles  back  upon  his  own  ^^  eternal 
city  J'''  Where  the  great  tyrant  reigns  in  the  name  of  God,  "  call- 
ing himself  God"  on  the  ruins  of  religion,  liberty  and  law. 

The  gentleman  ^has  said  so  much  about  the  spirit  of  European 
Presbyterians,  that  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  examine  this  matter  a 
little,  and  see  what  others  thought  of  our  venerable  ancestors. 
While,  as  we  have  said,  we  own  they  brought  out  of  Rome  a 
remnant  of  her  spirit,  yet  they  have  ever  been  foremost,  in  each 
age,  in  the  love  and  defence  of  human  liberty.  Dryden,  who  has 
done -so  much  with  his  sarcastic  pen  for  popery,  in  his  political 
poem,  called  "  The  Hind  and  Panther,'"  thus  traces  the  origin 
o^  republicanism.  Observe,  the  Hind  was  the  Romish  Church; 
tlie  English  Church  was  the  Panther;  the  Presbyterian  the 
ff^olf;  the  kennel,  Geneva ;  the  puddle,  its  beautiful  lake,  and  the 
ivall,  its  noble  mountains. 

"  Last  of  all,  the  litter  'scaped  by  chance, 
And  from  Geneva  first  infested  France. 
Some  authors  thus  his  pedigree  will  trace, 
But  others  write  him  of  an  upstart  race; 
Because  of  WicklifFs  brood  no  mark  he  brings, 
But  his  innate  anth'atiiy  to   kings. 
What  tho'  your  native  kennel  still  be  small, 
Bounded  between  a  puddle  and  a  wall  1 
Yet  your  victorious  colonies  are  sent, 
Where  the  North-ocean  girds  the  continent. 
Quickened  with  fire  below  your  monster's  breed 
In  fenny  Holland,  and  in  fruitful  Tweed ; 
And  like  the  first,  the  last  effects  to  be 
Draion  to  the  dregs  of  a  democracy. 
But  as  the  poisons  of  the  deadliest  kind 
Are  to  their  own  unhappy  coast  confined, 
So  Presbttery  and  its  pestilential  zeal, 
Cajt  flourish  only  in  a  coxmonweal." 

This  is  the  good,  honest  testimony  of  a  Papist.  It  needs  no 
comment.  Surely  Dryden  did  not  think  Presbyterianism  and  re- 
publics at  war  with  each  other  ! 

Again  ;  listen  to  Dean  Swift.  In  a  sermon,  preached  on  "  the 
Martyrdom  of  Charles  II.,"  he  said,  "  Upon  the  cruel  persecu- 
tions raised  against  the  Protestants  under  Queen  Mary,  among 
the  great  number  who  fled  the  kingdom  to  seek  for  shelter,  seve- 
ral went  and  resided  at  Geneva,  ivhich  is  a  commonwealth,  go- 
verned without  a  king,  where  the  religion  contrived  by  Calvin 
is  ivithout  the  order  of  bishops.  When  the  Protestant  faith  was 
restored  by  Queen  Elizabeth,  those  who  fled  to  Geneva  returned 
among  the  rest  home  to  England,  and  were  grown  so  fond  of  the 
government  and  religion  of  the  place  they  had  left,  that  they 
used  all  possible  endeavours  to  introduce  both  into  their  own 

country 

39 


306 

From  hence  they  proceeded  by  degrees  to  quarrel  with  the 
KINGLY  GOVERNMENT,  because^  (IS  I  Jiuve  already  said,  the  city  of 
Geneva,  to  which  their  fathers  had  flown  for  refuge,  was  a  com- 
monwealth, or  government  of  the  people!  J  He^  is  the  testimony 
of  a  Tory  and  high-churchman  !  Surely  the  rlffffi^differed  with 
our  Papist  priest  about  Presbyterianism  and  liberty! 

And  then,  as  to  "  il/r."  Luther  and  "  Mr."  Calvin,  especially 
the  latter!  why,  Mr.  President,  these  upstart  Jesuits,  who  have 
never  learned  as  much,  "  with  all  their  philosophy"  and  monarchy, 
as  C^^v'iw  for  got — I  do  not  not  wonder  that  they  hate  his  memory. 
He  was  not  infallible.  He  is  not  our  "  Pope."  We  condemned 
him  for  his  conduct  to  Servetus.  It  has  been  much  exaggerated, 
and  they  only  did  at  Geneva,  what  the  Papists  tried  to  do,  but 
failed,  at  Vienna.  Yet  it  was  very  wrong.  But,  if  one  victim, 
makes  Geneva  so  vile,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  millions  of  the 
victims  of  papal  crusades  and  inquisitions  1  Has  the  gentleman 
forgot?  or  does  he  adopt  the  famous  principle — '*  o?2e  murder 
makes  a  villain^'' "  millions  a  hero!'''' 

Hooker,  the  immortal  defender  of  Episcopacy,  says,  of  Calvin, 
in  his  Preface  to  his  "  Ecclesiastical  Polity,"  on  the  origin  of 
popular  Church  government,  "  that  he  was  imcomparably  the 
wisest  man  that  ever  the  French  Church  did  enjoy" — that  in 
Exposition  of  the  Scriptures,  "  the  perfectest  divines  in  the  Re- 
formed Churches  were  judged  to  be  they  who  were  skilfulest  in 
Calvin's  writings,  his  books  being  almost  the  very  canon  to  judge 
both  doctrine  and  discipline  by." 

And  our  own  eminent  and  admirable  historian,  Bancroft,  though 
himself  a  Unitarian,  thus  writes — not  only  of  Calvin,  but  Calvi- 
nists,  and  o^  American  Calvinists! 

"  They  who  have  no  admiration  but  for  wealth  and  rank,  can 
never  admire  the  Genevan  Reformer,  for  though  he  possessed  the 
richest  mind  of  his  age,  he  never  emerged  from  the  limits  of  frugal 
poverty.  The  rest  of  us  may  be  allowed  to  reverence  his  virtues, 
and  regret  his  errors.  He  lived  in  a  day  when  nations  were 
shaken  to  their  centre  by  the  excitement  of  the  Reformation, 
when  the  fields  of  Holland  and  France  were  wet  with  the  carnage 
of  persecution  ;  when  vindictive  monarchs  on  one  side  threatened 
all  Protestants  with  outlawry  and  death,  and  the  Vatican  on  the 
other  sent  forth  its  anathemas  and  its  cry  for  blood.  In  that  day, 
it  is  too  true,  the  influence  of  an  ancient,  long-established,  hardly 
disputed  error,  the  constant  danger  of  his  position,  the  intensest 
desire  to  secure  union  among  the  antagonists  of  popery,  the  en- 
grossing consciousness  that  his  struggle  was  for  the  emancipation 
of  the  Christian  world,  induced  the  great  Reformer  to  defend  the 
use  of  the  sword  for  the  extirpation  of  error.  Reprobating  and 
lamenting  his  adhesion  to  the  cruel  doctrine,  which  all  Christen- 
dom had  for  centuries  implicitly  received,  we  may,  as  republicans, 
remember  that  Calvin  was  not  only  the  founder  of  a  sect,  but  fore- 


307 

most  among  the  most  efficient  of  modern  republican  legislators. 
More  truly  benevolent  to  the  human  race  than  Solon,  more  self- 
denying  tlian  Lycurgus,  the  genius  of  Calvin  infused  enduring 
elements  into  the  institutions  of  Geneva,  and  made  it  for  the 
modern  world  the  impregnable  fortress  of  popular  liberty,  the  fer- 
tile seed-plot  of  democracy. 

"  Again ;  we  boast  of  our  common  schools  ;  Calvin  was  the 
father  of  popular  education,  the  inventor  of  the  system  of  free 
schools. 

"  Again  ;  we  are  proud  of  the  free  states  that  fringe  the  Atlan- 
tic. The  Pilgrims  of  Plymouth  were  Calvinists ;  the  best  influ- 
ence in  South  Carolina  came  from  the  Calvinists  of  France ;  Wm. 
Penn  was  the  disciple  of  the  Huguenots.  The  ships  from  Hol- 
land, that  first  brought  colonists  to  Manhattan,  were  filled  with 
Calvinists.  He  that  will  not  honour  the  memory  and  respect  the 
influence  of  Calvin,  knows  but  little  of  the  origin  of  American 
liberty. 

"  Or  do  personal  considerations  chiefly  win  applause?  Then 
no  one  merits  our  sympathy  and  our  admiration  more  than  Calvin ; 
the  young  exile  from  France,  who  achieved  an  immortality  of  fame 
before  he  was  twenty-eight  years  of  age ;  now  boldly  reasoning 
with  the  King  of  France  for  religious  liberty ;  now  venturing  as 
the  apostle  of  truth  to  carry  the  new  doctrines  into  the  heart  of 
Italy ;  and  now  hardly  escaping  from  the  fury  of  papal  persecu- 
tion ;  the  purest  writer,  the  keenest  dialectician  of  his  age ;  push- 
ing free  inquiry  to  its  utmost  verge,  and  yet  valuing  inquiry  only 
as  the  means  of  arriving  at  fixed  principles.  The  light  of  his 
genius  scattered  the  mask  of  darkness  which  superstition  had 
held  for  centuries  befoie  the  brow  of  religion.  His  probity  was 
unquestioned ;  his  morals  spotless.  His  only  happiness  consisted 
in  "  tasks  of  glory  and  of  good;"  for  sorrow  found  its  way  into 
all  his  private  relations.  He  was  an  exile  from  his  country  ;  he 
became,  for  a  season,  an  exile  from  his  place  of  exile.  As  a  hus- 
band, he  was  doomed  to  mourn  the  premature  loss  of  his  wife ;  as 
a  father,  he  felt  the  bitter  pang  of  burying  his  only  child.  Alone 
in  the  world,  alone  in  a  strange  land,  he  went  forward  in  his 
career  with  serene  resignation  and  inflexible  firmness  :  no  love  of 
ease  turned  him  aside  from  his  vigils  ;  no  fear  of  danger  relaxed 
the  nerve  of  his  eloquence  ;  no  bodily  infirmities  checked  the  in- 
credible activity  of  his  mind ;  and  so  he  continued,  year  after 
year,  solitary  and  feeble,  yet  toiling  for  humanity,  till,  after  a  life 
of  glory,  he  bequeathed  to  his  personal  heirs  a  fortune  in  books 
and  furniture,  stocks  and  money,  not  exceeding  two  hundred  dol- 
lars, and  to  the  world  a  purer  reformation,  a  republican  spirit  in 
religion,  with  the  kindred  principles  of  republican  liberty." 

How  impartial,  how  true,  how  noble.     How  such  light  dazzles 
as  it  discloses  the  "  bats"  of  the  gloomy  Vatican  ! ! ! 

We  come,  at  length,  to  the  gentleman's  famous  "  argnmentum 


SOS 

ad  capfandiim,^'  on  "  decrees''  ^nd  "  election.''     He  has  truly 
given  a  sad  caricature  of  our  system,  and  then  denied  to  us  even 
the   right  of  "  disclaimer,"   and  to  our  doctrine  the  benefit  of 
clergy,  and  decent  burial  in  holy  ground.     He  raises  two  argu- 
ments— but  they  two  are  one.     The  first  is — "  that  the  doctrine, 
that  ivhatever  comes  to  pass,  is  fore-ordained  unchangeably,"  is 
destructive  of  free  agency,  and  therefore  of  moral  freedom,  and 
therefore  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.     The  other  is  its  neces- 
sary corollary :    viz.,  that  "the  making  of  eternal  happiness  or 
misery  to  depend  npon  the  decrees  of  God,  without  conditions  of 
faith  and  good  works,"  destroys  motives  to  duty,  and  therefore 
all  regard  for  the  rights  of  others.     The  very  statement  of  the 
argument  shows,  that  the  gentleman  was  hard  run  for  matter. 
We  are  not  now  on  the  truth,  but  the  tendency  of  these  doctrines ; 
yet,  if  they  be  true,  (not  as  distorted  by  a  Jesuit,  but  as  spread 
out  in  our  standards,)  this  must  disprove  the  tendency  charged  on 
them  by  him,  as  well  as  exhibit  him  in  a  light  of  shocking  pro- 
fanity and  presumption.     I  will  not  argue  the  truth  of  these  doc- 
trines, as  that  is  not  the  questiori;  but  since  the  gentleman  has  an 
infallible  interpreter  always  present  on  earth,  I  beg,  in  reply,  that 
he  will  tell  us  what  he  makes  of  the  following  passages.     "  Him 
being  delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  f ore-knowledge  of 
God,  ye  have  taken,  and  by  ivicked  hands  have  crucified  and 
slain." — Acts,  ii.  23.      "  Thou   couldst  have  no  poiver  at  all 
against  me,  except  it  were  given  thee  from  above ;   therefore,  he 
that  delivered  me  unto  thee,  hath  the  greater  sin." — John,  xix.  ii. 
Here  the  sin  is  made  the  greater,  by  the  certainty  and  divinity  of 
the  decree.     Also,  Ephes.  i.   11;   Roms.  ix.   10 — 24;   Ephes.  i. 
2 — 4.     A  candid  Hicksite  once  said  to  me  in  debate,  "  Paul  cer- 
tainly agreed   with   thee."      Paul's   is   surely    good   company. 
Where  this    gentleman  will   put  him,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  deter- 
mine. 

Now,  as  to  the  tendency  of  these  doctrines,  we  hold,  and  so  our 
standards  abundantly  declare,  that  so  far  from  making  men  unholy, 
the  moment  a  man  freely  adopts  them,  he  is  humbled,  purified, 
and  made  a  Christian.  We  also  hold,  that  it  is  only  by  the  power 
of  God  a  man  can  be  made  or  kept  holy  ;  and  we  also  hold,  that 
God's  decrees  establish,  instead  of  destroying  moral  freedom. 
That  good  works  flow  from  God's  decrees  ;  and  that,  "  without 
holiness,  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord ;"  and  it  is  because  "  the 
Lord  worketh  in  us,"  "  that  7ue  work  out  our  salvation  with 
fear  and  trembling."  We  think  the  means  are  predestinated,  as 
well  as  the  end.  As  Paul  told  the  crew  of  the  ship  that  not  one 
of  them  should  be  lost;  and  yet,  after  that,  he  said,  if  the 
men  left  the  ship,  all  would  be  lost ;  so  we  hold,  as  to  the  means 
and  the  end.  Good  ivorks,  therefore,  are  a  part  of  the  system  ; 
not  as  causes,  but  as  effects;  not  as  merit,  but  as  fruit ;  not  as 


309 

conditions,  but  as  means.  The  doctrine,  on  the  contrary,  of  pa- 
pal merits,  we  hold,  not  only  dishonours  Christ,  but  tempts  men 
to  licentiousness  and  self-dependence;  and  the  whole  system  of 
penance,  indulgences,  confession,  unction,  remission  by  priests, 
purgatory,  prayers  for  the  dead,  supererogation,  and  the  mass,  is 
vile  human  patc/nvork — to  fill  the  pockets  of  the  priests,  and 
cheat  the  souls  of  the  people.  Well  have  these  hocus-pocus  arts 
and  heathen  exorcisms  been  described — 

"  Supplied  with  spiritual  provision 
And  magazines  of  ammunition, 
With  crosses,  relics,  crucifixes, 
Beads,  pictures,  rosaries,  and  pixes, 
The  tools  of  working  out  salvation 
By  mere  mechanic  operation." 

How  finely  contrasted  with  this  system  of  self-salvation,  is  the 
description  given  by  Sir  James  Macintosh:  (1)  "  It  was  fortunate 
also,  that  the  enormities  of  Tetzel"  [^the  Pope's  retailer  of  indul- 
gences'] "  found  Luther  busied  in  the  contemplation  of  the  princi- 
ple, which  is  the  basis  of  all  ethical  judgment,  and  by  the  power 
of  which  he  struck  a  mortal  blow  at  superstition  :"  namely,  "  men 
are  not  made  truly  righteous  by  performing  certain  actions  which 
are  externcdly  good,  but  men  must  have  righteous  principles  in 
the  first  place ;  and  then  they  will  not  fail  to  perform  virtuous  ac- 
tions." He  calls  it  "a  proposition  equally  certain  and 
SUBLIME  ;"  and  adds,  that  Luther,  in  a  more  special  application 
of  his  principle,  used  it  to  convey  his  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith.^' And  again  says,  "  injustice  to  him,  the  civil  his- 
torian should  never  omit  the  benefits  which  accrued  to  the  moral 

interests  of  society  from  this  principle. '''' This  principle  is 

the  merit  of  Christ  made  ours  by  the  power  of  God  woiking  faith 
in  us;  and  by  union  to  Christ,  making  us  free  from  guilt  and  pol- 
lution. To  this  Christians  are  by  God's  decree  predestinated. 
This  secures  moral  liberty,  and  moral  rectitude ;  makes  a  man  "  a 
law  unto  himself" — and  therefore,  a  good  citizen ;  the  freest,  no- 
blest, and  most  just  of  men. 

But  let  us  pass  from  principles  io  facts.  Who  held  these  doc- 
trines ?  Why  Augustin,  and  \he  flower  of  the  papacy.  And  at  the 
Reformation,  the  whole  of  Protestant  Europe  !  The  twelve  creeds 
of  the  Reformers,  uttered  by  many  millions  in  the  same  illustrious 
age,  from  Germany,  Switzerland,  Holland,  France,  England,  and 
Scotland,  were  all,  all  what  you  teim  "  Calvinistic."  And  they 
were  the  most  free,  and  most  virtuous  millions  of  all  Europe. 

Who  are  Calvinists  7ioz^-a-days  ?  Why,  not  only  the  Presby- 
terians of  Europe  and  America,  but  the  great  mass  of  the  Congre- 

(1)  History  of  England,  Vol.  IL  pp.  120-1. 


310 

gationalists  of  New  and  of  Old  England ;  the  Baptists,  as  a  body, 
of  both  continents;  and  the  articles  of  the  Episcopal  churches,  on 
both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  if  not  all  tlieir  clergy.  And  our  Me- 
thodist brethren,  the  potent  and  dreaded  enemies  of  popery  every 
where,  disclaim  and  abhor  the  "  merit-system,"  and  "  salvation  by 
works" — of  priest-craft,  though  they  reject  the  peculiar  doctrines 
of  Calvinism.  Now,  the  appeal  is  to  facts.  Are  not  these  Cal- 
vinistic  masses  of  men  among  the  purest  and  freest  upon  earth? 
Nay,  is  there  a  nation  on  earth  that  is  not  grossly  corrupt,  and 
deeply  enslaved,  in  which  there  is  not  a  strong  leaven  of  Cal- 
vinism? There,  then,  is  your  false  logic;  and  here  are  my 
triumphant  facts:  for  whose  truth,  I  appeal  to  the  history  of 
virtue,  liberty,  and  man. 

Finally,  it  is  curious  that  the  Council  of  Trent  has  contradicted 
itself  flatly  in  its  decree  on  this  subject;  and,  as  Father  Paul,  a 
Catholic,  has  told  us(l)  that  on  predestination  and  freewill  it  did 
not  agree;  and  could  not  agree.  Two  large  parties,  the  Domi- 
nicans and  Franciscans,  quarrelled  over  the  meaning  of  the  decree ; 
and  to  this  day,  it  is  a  contradictory  system,  evidently  shaped 
with  unity  of  words,  and  contrariety  of  doctrine.  In  fact,  they 
would  not  admit,  and  they  could  not  wholly  stifle,  the  truth. 

As  to  being  the  "  exclusive  favourites"  of  heaven,  our  princi- 
ples, as  already  quoted,  falsify  the  charge.  It  is  true,  we  hold 
Rome  to  be  apostate  from  God.  But  our  creed  avows  that  "  all 
men  are  to  be  protected  in  the  exercise  of  their  religion,"  true  or 
false  ;  and  we  embrace  Rome  in  our  pity,  and  "  all  who  hold  the 
head"  in  our  Christian  fellowship.  Complaints  of  bigotry  from  a 
Roman  priest,  if  they  were  sincere,  were  cheering  truly  ;  for  here- 
tofore papists  have  excluded  even  unbaptized  infants  from  heaven  ; 
and  the  Catholic  creed  expressly  says  "  out  of  the  true  Catho- 
lic FAITH  [not  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Church]  none  can  be  saved." 
But  all  Protestants  are  out  of  both  pale  and  faith. 

I  regret  the  gentleman  is  not  pleased  with  my  illustration  of  the 
''  hen."  I  adapted  my  figures  to  my  friend.  The  American 
eagle  spreads  too  free  a  pinion  to  descend  to  a  papal  quarry.  Be- 
sides, the  Pope  has  been  legislating  lately  about  the  use  of  eggs 
on  days  of  abstinence  ;  which  brought  the  good  dame  to  my  mind. 
But  I  truly  hope  there  is  no  oflence,  at  least  with  the  poor  fowl — 
for  I  should  fear  that  the  next  orders  from  Rome  will  not  only  for- 
bid us  to  eat,  but  her  to  lay  her  eggs.  If,  however,  my  Rev. 
friend  would  like  a  graver  fowl,  and  a  fitter  exemplar,  I  would  re- 
spectfully remind  him  that  Rome  was  once  before  saved  by  the 
cackling  of  a  goose. 

We  shall,  in  our  next,  reply  to  his  last  question,  about  Presby- 
terians abusing  power  when  they  had  it. 

(1)  Hist.  Counc.  Trent,  Book  XL 


311 

We  now  close,  as  we  have  not  room  to  go  on  with  that  ques- 
tion, by  asking  that  gentleman  to  tell  me  of  one  people  under 
heaven,  for  the  ages  on  ages  in  which  papacy  prevailed  over  the 
world,  of  one  country  where  Roman  Catholics  ever  had  the  power 
to  persecute,  and  did  not  do  it ;  or  one  country  in  those  ages 
that  was,  or  in  this  age,  that  now  is  really  free,  where  Roman 
Catholics  have  the  majority  ? 


312 


"/*  the  Preshytei'ian  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  P^ 


AFFIRMATIVE  II.— MR.  HUGHES. 

I  AM  far  from  supposing,  Mr.  Piesident,  that  the  good  sense  of 
this  meeting,  will  be  satisfied  with  the  gentleman's  mere  decla- 
mation, instead  oi  ihe  facts  ^\n\.  reasoning,  which  it  had  a  right  to 
expect,  and  with  which  he  had  promised  to  astound  the  nation. 
I  may  characterise  his  speech  justly,  by  saying  of  it,  that  what  is 
new  is  not  true,  and  what  true  is  not  new.  I  do  not  complain 
that  Catholics  are  persecuted  by  Presbyterians  in  the  sense  in 
which  he  would  represent.  But  I  complain  of  their  disposition 
and  efforts  to  bring  about  a  persecution.  Thanks  to  the  better 
genius  of  the  age  and  country,  they  have  not  yet  succeeded. 

The  cause  to  which  the  gentleman  ascribes  the  present  excite- 
ment against  Catholics,  for  exercising  the  lights  of  conscience,  is 
not  the  true  cause.  He  says  that,  in  as  much  as  poor  foreigners, 
escaping  from  the  oppressions  of  their  various  countries,  seek  an 
asylum  on  these  shores,  "  American  Episcopalians,  Baptists, 
Methodists,  and  congregationalists  as  well  as  Presbyterians,'''' 
are  guarding  the  coast  against  the  landing  of  the  emigrant  who 
comes  to  better  his  condition,  and  to  breathe,  as  he  supposed, 
the  air  of  religious  and  civil  freedom.  He  is  a  foreigner,  as 
all  of  us  have  been,  either  in  ourselves  or  in  our  ancestors,  but 
his  son  will  be  an  American,  and  his  grandson  will  wear  gold 
spectacles.  He  may  be  poor,  but  is  this  a  reason  why  "  ministers 
of  the  gospeW^  should  denounce  him  ?  He  may  be  ignorant,  but 
does  not  this  strengthen  his  claim  to  our  pity  and  humanity? 
Should  we  not  rejoice  that  he  and  his  posterity  are  transplanted  into 
a  region,  where  human  rights  are  recognised ;  and  that  a  race  of 
victims  have  been  rescued  from  the  present,  and  prospective, 
grasp  of  iron-handed  despotism,  both  civil  and  religious.  But  he 
is  a  Catholic;  that  is,  he  worships  God,  according  to  the  dictates 
of  his  conscience, — and  has  he  not  a  right  to  do  so  ?  And  shall  we 
be  told  that  all  the  other  Protestant  denominations  join  the  Presby- 
terians in  denouncing  him  for  this  ?  I  do  not  believe  the  assertion. 
He  comes  to  earn  his  bread  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow,  to  tame  the 
forests,  and  to  make  the  highways  of  commerce  through  the  very 
cornfields,  by  canals  and  rail-ways;  and  is  tliis  an  injury  to  your 
country  ?     But  he  is  a  Catholic,  ignorant  and  vicious ;  then  teach 


313 

him  virtue  by  example,  and  if  this  will  not  do,  teach  him  by  the 
laivs.  But  the  accusation  is  a  calumny:  the  great  body  of  Catho- 
lic emigrants,  exposed  as  they  are,  are  industrious,  hard  working 
people,  who  live,  not  by  knavei-y,  but  by  their  daily  tod.  And 
the  vicious  among  them,  are  themselves  the  victims  of  their  own 
folly  and  wickedness.  This  plea,  therefore,  for  the  pretended 
combination  of  all  protestant  denominations  is  equally  unfounded 
and  absurd. 

But  there  are  "  foreign  associations  in  aid  of  Catholic  missiona- 
ries." And  so  there  are  here, — ^for  the  aid  and  support  of  foreign 
protestant  missions.  Of  which  then,  on  the  score  of  political 
economy,  has  the  country  more  reason  to  complain — of  those  who 
send  the  money  out  of  the  country,  or  of  those  who  bring  it  in  ? 
The  receipts  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  since  its  commence- 
ment to  the  year  1830,  have  been  $909,291.15,  almost  a  million 
of  dollars.  The  receipts  of  the  Board  of  foreign  missiOxVS,  in 
1834,  was  $152,386.10.  (1)  This  society  has  been  in  operation 
for  twenty-five  years,  and  the  whole  sum  expended  by  it,  in 
FOREIGN  missions,  is  probably  not  less  than  two  millions.  All 
that  was  ever  received  by  Catholics  from  foreign  sources  together, 
would  not  equal  in  amount  the  annual  income  of  the  American 
Board  of  Foreign  Missions.  Is  it  an  injury,  therefore,  that  for 
all  the  money  which  they  send  out  of  the  country,  the  Catholics 
should  bring  a  litde  in?  But  they  build  colleges  with  it.  Well, 
that  only  proves  that  they  are  the  friends  of  education ;  and  are 
the  friends  of  education,  the  enemies  of  freedom?  Education 
ought  not  to  be  a  Presbyterian  monopoly — we  do  not  burn  down 

their  houses  of  education.     But  "  European  despots" 

The  Catholic  religion  has  flourished  in  despite  of  them ;  it  can 
flourish  without  them.  They  are  its  enemies  at  home,  and  we 
cannot  expect  them  to  be  its  friends  abroad.  But  the  "  Leopol- 
DiNE  foundation" — What  of  it?  Its  members,  very  limited  in 
number,  choose  to  tax  themselves  about  one  cent  a  week,  in  aid 
of  foreign  missions  in  America.  And  supposing  all  the  people  of 
Europe  were  to  do  the  same,  it  would  only  ....  bring  more  money 
into  the  country.  Yes,  but  it  is  to  aid  in  spreading  Catholicity. 
And  is  Protestantism  afraid  of  being  bought  out?  The  Presbyte- 
rians seem  to  think  so.  But  "  Prince  Metternich,"  the  gentle- 
man tells  you,  "  sends  vast  sums  for  the  spread  of  catholicity." 
I  am  aware  that  the  gentleman  is  not  original  in  making  this  as- 
sertion, and  1  have  the  less  difliculty,  on  this  account,  in  pronoun- 
cing it  to  be,  what  it  is,  a  positive  falsehood.  1  challenge  his 
proof.  But  "  Bishop  England"  has  made  a  "  late  tour"  in  Europe, 
and  of  course  he  was  about  no  good.  And  pray,  is  the  policy  of 
China  to  be  adopted,  by  the  American  people,  that  a  citizen  may 
not  go  when  and  where  he  pleases  ?     According  to  the  gentleman's 

(1)  See  Report,  page  44. 
40 


314 

apprehension  of  things,  Rome  is  the  "beau  ideal"  of  civil  and 
religious  despotism,  and  yet  in  Rome,  as  elsewhere,  the  institutions 
of  America,  found  in  Bishop  England  not  only  a  willing,  but  a 
willing  and  able  advocate.  It  is  true  that  the  burning  of  the 
CONVENT  gave  the  advocates  of  absolutism  a  momentary  advantage 
over  him,  but  it  was  only  until  he  had  time  to  discriminate  between 
the  genius  of  our  institutions,  and  that  dark,  cold,  remnant  of  Cal- 
vinistic  bigotry,  which  the  sun  of  our  government  has  not  been 
able  to  thaw  into  humanity,  or  enlighten  into  virtue. 

But  "  Schlegel,  in  his  Lectures  on  the  Philosophy  of  History," 
says  that  the  "  nursery  of  all  the  revolutions  that  occurred  in 
Europe,  has  been  North  America."  To  be  sure, — and  he  says 
the  fact.  And  a  fact  of  which  "  North  America"  is  not  ashamed. 
Nay,  it  is  her  boast.  On  the  fourth  day  of  July,  every  year, 
this  very  fact  makes  every  tongue,  east  and  west  of  the  Alleghany, 
eloquent  with  liberty  and  patriotism. 

As  for  tiie  "Jesuits,"  there  are  a  few  facts  in  their  history, 
which  make  me  appreciate  the  unintended  compliment  the  gentle- 
man pays  me,  when  he  represents  me  as  their  "defender."  One 
is,  that  they  have  done  more  for  education  and  science,  than  all  the 
Presbyterians  that  ever  did,  or  ever  will,  exist.  Another  is,  that 
they  have  suffered  persecution,  and  rejoiced  that  they  were  found 
worthy  to  suffer,  for  the  name  of  Jesus.  Another  still,  is,  that 
their  enemies,  the  infidels  of  the  last  century,  were  the  enemies 
of  Christianity.  Frederick  the  Great,  who  was  in  the  secrets  of  the 
infidel  conspiracy^  said  of  the  Jesuits,  that  they  were  the  ^^ foxes,'''' 
between  the  sheep  of  the  Christian  fold  and  the  "wolves,"  that 
wished  to  devour  them.  I  have  no  objection,  therefore,  to  see 
the  gentleman  putting  on  the  panoply  of  Voltaire  and  Rousseau, 
against  the  Jesuits,  though  I  do  not  think  it  becomes  him.  The 
reasonable  motive  of  hatred  against  them  in  this  country,  is,  that 
they  can  give  a  better  and  a  cheaper  education  than  Presbyte- 
rians. 

I  have  taken,  Mr.  President,  almost  too  much  notice  of  the 
gentleman's  loose  and  vague,  and  I  may  add,  unfounded,  assertions. 
You  have  observed  that,  like  all  declaimers  who  wish  to  reach  an 
end,  and  have  not  the  means,  he  deals  exclusively  in  general 
statements,  without  proof.  The  only  authority  in  fact  that  he 
could  adduce  is  that  of  an  anonymous  libeller  in  New  York,  who, 
under  the  signature  of  "Brutus,"  and  in  a  tract  of  silly  slander 
against  Catholics,  entitled  "  Foreign  Conspiracy,"  insulted  the  un- 
derstanding of  the  country,  by  pretending  that  the  governments 
of  Europe  were  preparing  to  invade  our  liberties — as  if  such  a 
thing  were  possible.  They  have  enough  to  do  at  home.  But, 
sir,  these  Presbyterian  gentlemen  are  haunted  by  strange  visions. 
Some  time  since,  there  was  a  division  in  the  synod  of  Cincinnati, 
(no  unusual  thing  by  the  bye)  and  a  reverend  peacemaker  ad- 
dresses them,  as  I  remember,  in  this  wise — "  Ah !  Brethren,  how 


31$ 

the   Pope  of  Rome  will  chuckle,  when  lie  hears  of  your  divi- 
sions /" 

The  gentleman,  however,  I  must  do  hiui  the  justice  to  say,  has 
ventured  on  one  specific  statement.  In  order  to  make  you  believe 
that  crowds  of"  Jesuits"  are  smuggled  through  our  custom-houses, 
he  tells  you  that,  *'  Talleyrand  (a  Jesuit)  was  once  a  teacher 
IN  THIS  COUNTRY."  Here  is  something  tangible.  Here  is  a  sen- 
tence of  only  ten  words,  and  yet  it  contains  two  positively  false 
statements.  Talleyrand  never  was  either  a  "  Jesuit,"  or  a 
"teacher." 

Such  is  the  analysis  of  the  pretended  events  which  have  roused, 
as  the  gentleman  asserts,  the  "  American  Episcopalians,  Baptists, 
Methodists,  Congregationalists,  as  well  as  Presbyterians,^^  to 
"inquire  what  can  this  mean?"  That  some  of  each  of  these 
denominations  may  have  been  used  to  stir  up  the  fanatical  excite- 
ment, is  highly  probable : — but  that  the  genius  which  presides 
and  directs,  is  the  genius  of  Presbyterianism,  no  man  at  all  ac- 
quainted with  the  character  of  the  machinery  will  for  a  moment 
deny.  The  only  denominations,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  that  have 
brought  the  politics  of  the  country  into  their  pulpits — are  the 
Presbyterians,  and  possibly  their  step-brethren,  the  Congregation- 
alists of  New  England.  The  only  denomination  that  have  itiner- 
ant haranguers  on 'pay,  who  go  about  like  roaring  lions,  for  the 
express  purpose  of  stirring  up  the  people  against  Catholics,  are 
the  Presbyterians.  The  only  denomination  that  seem  to  have 
despaired  of  being  able  to  pluck  arguments  from  heaven,  for  the 
refutation  of  Catholic  doctrine,  and  who  have,  therefore,  stooped 
to  dig  them  out  of  the  earth,  are  the  Presbyterians.  Yet  I  know  some 
Presbyterians,  and  I  hope  there  are  many  whom  I  do  not  know, 
who  blush  for  and  condemn  these  proceedings.  The  gentleman, 
however,  I  regret  to  say  is  not  of  the  number.  Dr.  Beecher  of 
Cincinnati,  whose  visit  to  Boston  last  year  was  as  if  he  came  to 
"  bring  fire  on  earth,  and  only  wished  that  it  might  be  kindled" — 
who  had  scarcely  finished  his  third  sermon  against  Catholics,  when 
the  Convent  was  in  flames — he  is  not  of  the  number.  The  con- 
ductors of  the  Cincinnati  Presbyterian  Journal,  who  gave  the 
first  circulation  to  what  the  Chronicle  of  that  city  calls  "  an  im- 
pudent LIE,"  viz.  the  story  about  knocking  a  senator  down,  and, 

"  HATS    OFF,     GENTLEMEN,     THE    BISHOP's  COMING,"  are    not    of   the 

number.  They  knew,  and  most  of  their  colleagues  knew,  that 
this  was  "an  impudent  lie."  They  published  the  falsehood,  and 
they  have  refused  to  publish  the  correction.  Nay,  a  Presbyterian 
minister  in  New  York,  Mr.  Mason,  has  made  this  falsehood  im- 
mortal, by  treating  it  as  a  matter  of  historical  record,  in  his  Preface 
to  History  of  the  Inquisition. 

But,  if  there  be  a  man  in  the  country  whose  sentiments  are  a 
fair  index  of  the  genius  and  temper  of  Presbyterians,  that  man  is 
Dr.  Miller,  of  the  Princeton  Theological  Seminary.  In  his  Intro- 
ductory Essay  to  the  History  of  Romanism,  a  compilation  of 


31G 

calumny  antl  buflbonery,  this  venerable  professor,  in  the  nineteenth 
century,  and  in  tlie  United  States  of  America,  denounces  his 
Catholic  fellow-citizens  "  as  foes  of  God  and  man  !"  and  com- 
pares them  to   "  HIGHWAYMEN  AND  ASSASSINS  IN  THE  DARK."       Out 

of  the  Presbyterian  communion,  I  question  whether  there  is  a 
man  on  the  American  continent  capal)le  of  giving  utterance  to  a 
sentiment,  so  unchristian  and  so  inhuman;  for,  let  it  be  recol- 
lected, that  the  crime  of  the  Catholics  is  their  worshipping  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  their  oivn  conscience,  rather  than  of 
that  of  the  General  Assembly,  or  of  Dr.  Miller. 

No,  sir,  the  glory  of  stirring  up,  or  causing  to  be  stirred  up, 
the  smouldering  embers  of  religions  hatred,  (what  a  contradiction  !) 
belongs  to  the  Presbyterians.  The  other  denominations  of  whom 
the  gentleman  has  made  an  aitificial  parade,  are,  no  doubt,  per- 
suaded that  we  are  wrong  in  our  belief:  our  conviction  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  in  regard  to  their  creed.  But  they  are,  in  the 
main,  content  to  allow  us  to  conduct  our  aflairs  in  our  own  way, 
and  we  certainly  do  not  disturb  them  in  the  management  of  theirs. 
Not  so  the  zealots  among  the  Presbyterians.  Believers  in  their 
own  "  election,"  and  in  the  "  inamissibility  of  grace,"  they  seeni 
to  think  that  God  has  commanded  them  to  take  charge  of  all  the 
rest  of  mankind.  I  can  admire  their  zeal,  but  I  would  admire  it 
much  more,  were  it  tempered  with  a  little  more  charity,  and  a 
little  less  overbearance. 

But  the  gentleman  tells  yon  that  the  American  people  "ex- 
amine EVERY  THING ;"  that  popcry,  as  he  insultingly  calls  my 
religion,  cannot  stand  the  test  of  inquiry ;  and  that  its  votaries 
have  no  other  way  to  hide  its  deformities,  than  by  end^»avouring 
to  check  free  inquiry  and  discussion. 

I  suppose  we  may  take  the  scene  that  was  exhibited  in 
Mr.  M'Calla's  church  last  winter,  as  a  fair  specimen  of  what  the 
gentleman  means  by  "  free  inquiry."  A  platform — a  crowd  of 
curious  and  uneducated  people  of  both  sexes — a  circle  of  ministers, 
amusing  the  audience  with  burlesque  and  ribaldry,  at  the  expense, 
not  of  the  Catholic  religion,  but  of  what  the  speakers  might  think 
proper  to  represent  as  such :  this  is  what  we  are  to  understand  by 
"  FREE  inquiry."  A  sccuo  unworthy  of  the  temple  and  its  minis- 
ters; at  which,  though  the  profane  might  laugh,  piety,  of  what- 
ever sect,  might  find  enough  to  weep.  This  is  "  free  inquiry." 
That  is,  your  enemies  attack  your  character,  by  dubbing  their  ca- 
lumnies or  prejudices  against  you  :  one  says  that  you  knocked  down 
an  American  senator,  because  he  would  not  take  off  his  hat  when 
*'  the  bishop  was  coming;"  another,  that  you  have  cells  for  the  in- 
quisition, and  infants'  sculls  in  your  cellar;  a  third  avers  that  you 
are  as  bad  as  "a  highwayman,  and  an  assassin  in  the  dark;"  a 
fourth  proves  that  you  are  "the  foe  of  both  God  and  man;" 
and,  then,  the  assembly  closes,  as  it  commenced,  with  a  prayer. 
You    remonstrate  against    the    injustice  of  thus    attacking  your 


317 

♦character;  and  you  are  gravely  told  that  you  are  an  enemy  to 
**  free  investigation  ;"  and  that  the  "  American  people  investigate 
■everything.^'' 

The  Catholic  religion  courts  investigation,  but  not  this  kind 
•of  investigation ;  and  Presbyterians  do  not  allow  it  the  benefit  of 
any  other.  If  tliey  wished  the  American  people  to  be  informed 
correctly  on  the  subject,  they  would  direct  them  to  our  catechisms 
and  books  of  instruction,  and  not  to  our  enemies.  The  Catho- 
lic clergy  throughout  the  country,  though  not  obtrusive,  are,  never- 
theless, always  ready  to  explain  our  doctrine  to  those  who  are 
sincere  in  their  inquiries.  But  the  object  is  to  distort  the  public 
judgment,  by  the  exhibition  of  caricatures,  and  the  concoction  of 
old  slanders  with  modern  seasoning.  The  object  is  to  vitiate  the 
public  taste ;  so  that,  like  the  Chinese,  who  never  relish  eggs  till 
-they  are  stale,  nothing  may  go  down  but  what,  in  a  healthier 
tone  of  the  literary  and  religious  palate,  would  have  created  nausea 
and  disgust.  Witness  Miss  Reed's  book.  Witness  the  "  Down- 
fall OF  Babylon,"  by  a  Miss  Reed  of  the  other  gender,  the 
unhappy  Mr.  Smith,  a  little  two-penny  concern  of  abuse  against 
the  Catholics,  of  which  Dr.  Ely  said,  with  a  good  deal  of  mali- 
cious wit,  "  every  little  helps."  It  is  by  such  means  as  these 
that  the  Catholic  religion  and  its  professors  are  enveloped  in 
the  slime  of  calumny,  and  so  presented  for  the  judgment  of  the 
*'  American  people:"  just  as  the  anaconda  wraps  up  its  victim  in 
saliva,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  process  of  swallowing. 

I  have  already  said,  that,  with  regard  to  the  young  gentlemen 
who  introduced  the  question  in  this  society,  I  could  not  for  a  mo- 
ment suppose  that  they  would  knowingly  introduce  any  question 
for  ihe  purpose  of  injuring  any  sect  or  denomination.  So  far  as 
I  know  them,  I  have  too  high  an  opinion  of  their  honour  and 
sense  of  justice,  to  harbour  the  thought  for  one  moment. 

It  is  true  that  the  gentleman  was  the  advocate  of  the  unfortunate 
Poles,  who  were  not  only  foreigners,  but  Catholics,  and  I  give 
^im  credit  for  it.  When  he  pourtrayed  the  agonies  of  their  sepa- 
ration from  their  country,  and  their  friends,  whom  they. should 
see  no  more,  until  they  meet  "  around  the  throne  of  God,"  the 
picture  was  touching,  and  did  honour  to  his  feelings ;  but,  alas ! 
the  vision  of  the  orator,  and  the  man,  was  soon  dissipated  by  the 
dogmas  of  the  Presbyterian.  In  this  capacity,  the  gentleman, 
against  the  better  feelings  of  his  nature,  is  obliged  to  regard  them, 
and  all  Catholics,  as — idolaters !  so  that  their  meeting  "  around 
the  throne  of  God,"  was,  after  all,  only  a  figure  of  oratory. 

The  Society  remember  that  I  exposed  the  gentleman's  falsificar 
tion  of  the  Council  of  Lateran,  in  the  place  in  which,  suppressing 
the  crimes  of  the  Albigenses,  in  the  middle  of  the  quotation,  and 
bringing  the  beginning  and  end  together,  without  indicating  any 
omission,  he  made  it  appear  that  the  penalties  enacted  against 
(them,  were  for  their  speculative  errors,  and  7iot  for  their  crimes 


318 

against  society;  his  excuse  was,  that  "he  had  quoted  as  Faber 
had  done."  If,  therefore,  this  is  "  slander,"  as  he  now  says,  you 
are  all  witnesses  that  he  himself  is  my  authority!  Quo  ipse 
ducit,  sequor.  When  I  falsify,  let  him  expose ;  that  he  has  done, 
or  can  do  so,  I  emphatically  deny. 

The  speech  which  you  have  just  heard  is  sufficiently  accom- 
modating. It  admits  the  fact  that  persecution  was  a  part  of  Pres- 
byterianism,  from  the  origin  of  the  sect,  down  to  the  last  amend- 
ment of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Then,  it  follows,  that  down  to 
this  period,  the  Presbyterians  were  themselves  heretics ;  by  hold- 
ing *'  as  having  been  revealed  by  Almighty  God,"  a  tenet,  which, 
just  after  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  it  was  discovered  tbat 
God  had  not  revealed !  Here,  then,  is  a  Presbyterian  minister, 
acknowledging  that,  down  to  that  period,  all  Presbyterians  were 
heretics  by  doctrine,  2.^6.  persecutors  by  heresy!  This  is  candid, 
though  perhaps  some  of  his  brethren  may  regard  it  as  somewhat 
humiliating. 

By  this  candid  acknowledgment,  the  gentleman  has  saved  me, 
for  the  present,  the  necessity  of  entering  on  the  horrible  facts  of 
persecution  by  the  Presbyterians.  It  only  remains  to  show  that 
persecution  is  at  this  day,  and  in  the  United  States,  an  avowed 
doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  When  I  say  "avowed," 
I  do  not  mean  that  they  avow  it  under  that  name;  but  that  they 
avow  it,  in  other  words,  no  man  acquainted  with  the  Confession 
of  Faith  will  for  a  moment  deny.  Since  the  revolution  they  have 
cut  down  the  tree,  whose  fruit  was  death  to  other  Protestants,  as 
well  as  Catholics,  in  the  various  countries  of  the  earth  in  which 
Calvinism  prevailed.  But  its  root  remains.  The  Presbyterians 
hold  not  only  as  a  doctrine,  but  as  a  positive  commandment  of 
Almighty   God,  that  they  are  bound   "  to  remove  all   false 

WORSHIP,  AND  all    THE  MONUMENTS  OF  IDOLATRY."       If,  therefore, 

they  are  hound  to  do  this,  by  the  commandment  of  God,  what 
other  religion  will  remain,  after  they  have  begun  to  "  keep  the 
commandments?"  Every  other  religion  but  their  own,  is  a 
"FALSE  worship;"  and,  as  they  are  bound  to  "  remove  all  false 
worship,"  it  follows  that  they  are  bound  to  remove  all  other  reli- 
gions. In  the  Confession  of  Faith,  under  the  head  of  the  Second 
Commandment,  (1)  among  the  obligations  which  the  command- 
ment imposes,  we  find  "  the  disapproving,  detesting,  opposing  all 
false  worship,  and,  according  to  each  one's  place  and  calli7ig, 
removing  it  and  all  the  monuments  of  idolatry y  Not  only  is 
this  obligation  imposed  on  the  Presbyterians  by  the  Decalogue, 
it  is  confirmed  to  them  as  the  true  heirs  of  the  Jews  in  their 
complex  rights  regarding  the  land  of  Canaan.  The  Confession 
of  Faith  takes  the  confirming  warrant  from  the  seventh  chapter 
of  Dueteronomy — of  which  the  text  is  clear. 

(1)  Pages  218,  219,  Quest.  108. 


319 

The  gentleman  has  had  the  candour  to  admit,  that  by  *'  monu- 
ments of  idolatry,"  are  meant  whatever  is  appropriated  to,  or  in 
connexion  with,  the  Catholic  religion.  Hence,  according  to  the 
Presbyterian  mode  of  interpreting  the  seventh  chapter  of  Deuter- 
onomy, we,  as  IDOLATERS,  are  to  be  treated  by  them,  the  people 
OF  God,  as  the  Canaanites  were  treated  by  the  Jews.  It  is  not 
for  me  to  say  who  the  *♦  seven  nations"  are.  But  if  the  true 
worship  be  the  Presbyterian,  the  '^ false  worships"  are  pretty 
numerous,  and  it  will  be  difficult  to  "  remove"  them.  However, 
as  the  Presbyterians  are  bound  to  aim  at  this  object,  "  according 
TO  each  one's  place  and  calling" — i.  e.  the  minister  in  the 
pulpit — the  author  at  the  press — the  teacher  of  schools  as  teacher, 
— the  session  of  the  church,  the  Synod,  and  the  General  Assem- 
bly, in  their  accumulating,  and  concentrated  influence — the 
Sunday  School  Union,  as  the  Sunday  School  Union — the  various 
religious  societies  holding  this  abominable  doctrine,  in  their  re- 
spective capacities — the  merchant  in  his  commerce,— the  judge 
on  the  bench, — the  jurymen  in  the  box — the  legislator  as  legis- 
lator— the  ordinary  citizen  at  the  ballot  box — the  pious  ladies  who 
have  hearts  to  pity  the  objects  of  persecution,  except  they  are 
steeled  with  Calvinism,  in  their  domestic  influence:  in  a  word, 
all  Presbyterians,  being  bound  by  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
the  supposed  commandment  of  the  holy  and  just  God,  to  "  remove 
all  false  worship,"  may  succeed,  by  the  mode  which  they  are 
bound  to  follow,  "  each  according  to  his  place  and  calling.'*^ 

This,  therefore,  being  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
throws  considerable  light  on  some  of  their  recent  eflbrts  to  disturb 
the  equilibrium  of  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  country.  Their 
petitions  to  Congress  to  have  the  Sabbath  sanctified  by  legislative 
enactments ;  their  attempt  to  drive  out  of  circulation  every  ele- 
mentary book  of  education  not  favourable  to  their  doctrine  of 
arrogance,  as  well  as  despotism  ;  their  attempt,  frustrated  by  the 
timely  but  unintentional  disclosures  of  that  "  busy  and  loquacious 
man,"  as  the  gentleman  calls  him,  Dr.  Ely,  to  "  form  a  Christian 
party  in  politics;"  these  were  the  beginnings  of  that  intolerant 
policy  which  in  the  name  of  God  JUmighty  calls  upon  all  Presby- 
terians to  labour  "  according  to  each  one's  place  and  calling,"  to 
*'  remove  all  false  worship,  and  all  the  monuments  of  idolatry." 
Since  the  failure  of  these,  it  has  been  thought  more  expedient,  not 
to  attempt  the  fulfilment  of  the  whole  commandment  at  once  ;  and 
it  is  thought  wiser  to  begin  by  putting  down  the  "  monuments  of 
idolatiy"  first,  and  the  "false  worships"  will  be  more  easily 
"removed"  afterwards. 

I  would  now  appeal  to  any  twelve  conscientious  men  in  the 
United  States,  and  ask  them,  under  the  moral  responsibilities  of  a 
jury,  bound  to  decide  according  to  truth,  whether  this  doctrine  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  Slates,  is  not  in  deadly 
conflict  with  the  constitution  under  which  we  live.     Here  is  a 


320 

constitution  securing  to  every  man  the  right  to  woiship  God  ac- 
cording to  the  dictates  of  his  conscience  :  and  here  is  a  Confession 
of  Faith  obliging,  by  a  commandment  of  God,  the  Presbyterians 
to  "remove  all  false  worship,  and  all  the  monuments  of  idolatry." 
The  Presbyterians,  therefore,  must  be  either  faithless  to  God,  by 
bearing  with  those  "false  worships  and  monuments  of  idolatry," 
which  according  to  their  narrow  and  intolerant  creed,  he  has  com- 
manded them  to  "  remove  ;^^  or  they  must  be  traitors  to  the  con- 
stitution which  protects  those  "false   worships,"  and  will  not 
allow  them  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God,  by  removing  the 
monuments  of  idolatry.     I  did  not  say,  as  the  gentleman  aflects 
to  understand  me,  that  the  Convent  at  Boston  was  burned  down 
by  Presbyterians ;  but  what  is  certain  is,  that  the  Presbyterians 
have,  what  they  call  a  commandment  of  God,  and  according  to 
that  commandment,  the  incendiaries  who    fired   it,   were  doing 
God's  service,  though  against  the  American  constitution.     The 
chivalrous  men  who  made  war  on  the  dwellings  of  defenceless 
ladies  and  female  children,  in  mask,  and  at  the  dead  hour  of  mid- 
j^iglit — -the  men  who,  by  this  act  of  barbarism  and  ferocity,  violated 
the  American  constitution  and  fixed  a  blot  on  the  national  escut- 
cheon, and  on  the  nineteenth  century,  did  nothing  more  than  what 
the  commandment  of  God  binds  all  Presbyterians  to  do — "  accord- 
ing to   each  one's  place  and  calling ^^ — they  "removed  a  false 
worship,  a  monument  of  idolatry."     With  this  doctrine,  therefore^ 
in  their  Confession  of  Faith,  is  it  not  an  evidence  of  singular 
contempt  for  the  attestations  of  history  and  the  understandings  of 
men,  thai  the  Presbyterians,  above  all  other  denominations,  should 
put  themselves  forward  as  the  advocates  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty  ;  whilst — under  the  divine  obligation  of  removing  *-'  all 
FALSE  WORSHIP,"  and   all  the  ^^  monuments  of  idolatry, ^^   they 
would  allow  it  to  none  but  themselves ! 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  the  purposes  avowed  by  Dr.  Ely 
are  in  strict  accordance  with  the  doctrine  and  history  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  The  gentleman  would  account  for  the  avowal, 
by  telling  you,  that  the  doctor  is  a  "  busy  and  loquacious  man  ;'* 
but  it  has  a  deeper  origin.  The  doctor  may  have  been  "  impru- 
dent," and  it  is  well  for  the  country  that  he  was  so.  But  for  the 
rest,  I  ask,  whether  he  was  not  discharging  the  duties  of  a  sincere 
Presbyterian  minister?  He  was  commanded,  with  all  his  brethren, 
by  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  on  the  pretended  authority  of  God, 

to  "  REMOVE    ALL    FALSE    WORSHIP,    AND    ALL    THE    MONUMENTS    OF 

IDOLATRY."  And  this  he  was  commanded  to  do  according  to  his 
"  PLACE  AND  CALLING."  Now,  his  "  placo  and  calling"  are  the 
ministry  and  the  pulpit;  and  hence,  he  was  only  discharging 
honestly  the  duties  imposed  on  him  by  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
when,  on  the  4th  of  July,  1827,  he  preached  the  doctrine  of  his 
Church  in  the  following  passages  : — 

"  Our  rulerSf  like  any  other  members  of  the  community,  who 


321 

are  under  the  law  to  God,  as  rational  beings,  and  under  law  to 
Christ,  since  they  have  the  light  of  Revelation,  ought  to  search 
the  Scriptures,  assent  to  the  truth;  profess  faith  in  Christ;  keep 
the  Sabbath  holy  to  God;  pray  in  private,  and  in  the  domestic 
circle;  attend  to  the  public  jninistry  of  the  tvord;  be  baptized, 
AND  CELEBRATE  THE  Lord's  Supper."  This  is  specious  and 
general ;  still,  it  is  a  religious  test  of  qualifications  for  office. 
But  the  doctor,  being  a  "  busy  and  loquacious  man,"  unfolds  a 
little  more  of  the  doctrine  in  the  following  passage,  given  as  ex- 
planatory of  the  above  : — 

''  In  other  loords,  our  presidents,  secretaries  of  the  govern- 
ment,  senators,  and  other  representatives  in  Congress,  governors 
of  states,  judges,  state  legislators,  justices  of  the  peace,  and  city 
7nagistrates,  are  just  as  much  bound,  as  any  other  persons  in  the 
United  States,  to  be  orthodox  in  their  faith." 

Now,  if  Presbyterians  could  see  all  these  offices  filled  by  men 
who  are  "  orthodox  in  their  faith,"  then  they  might  begin  to 
keep  the  commandment  of  God,  as  set  forth  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  by  which  "  they  are  bound,"  according  to  each  one's  place 
and  calling,  to  remove  all  false  worship,  and  all  the  monuments 
of  idolatry."  However,  the  doctor's  "  place  and  calling"  was  to 
labour  for  this  remote  end.     Accordingly  he  goes  on: — 

"/  propose,  fellow-citizens,  a  new  sort  ofimion;  or,  if  you 
please,  a  Christian  party  in  politics,  which  I  am  exceedingly 
anxious  all  good  men  in  our  country  should  join,  not  by  sub- 
scribing a  new  constitution,  and  the  formation  of  a  new  society, 
but  by  adopting,  avoiving,  and  determining  to  act  upon  truly 
religious  principles  in  all  civil  matters." 

"  The  Presbyterians  alone  could  bring  half  a  million  of 
electors  into  the  field. '^ 

"  It  will  be  objected,  that  my  plan,''''  (of  making  orthodoxy  a 
test  for  office,)  "  of  a  truly  Christian  party  in  politics,  will  make 
hypocrites.  We  are  not  answerable  for  their  hypocrisy,  if  it 
does.'''' 

"  /  am  free  to  avow,  that  other  things  being  equal,  I  would 
prefer  for  my  chief  tnagistrate,  and  judge,  and  ruler,  a  sound 
Presbyterian." 

Now,  the  end  of  the  second  commandment,  as  laid  down  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  is  the  removal  of  "  all  false  worship,  and  all 
the  monuments  of  idolatry."  And  when  all  public  rulers  shall 
be  "orthodox  in  their  faith,"  "sound  Presbyterians,"  and 
each  obliged  to  labour  for  the  end,  according  to  his  ^' place  and 
catling,'"  it  is  easy  to  foresee  the  consequences.  Let  the  gentle- 
man not  think,  therefore,  that  he  can  get  over  this  avowed  doc- 
trine of  the  Presbyterian  creed,  by  charging  Dr.  Ely  with  being  a 
"  busy  and  loquacious  man."  The  truth  is,  that  the  doctor  only 
preached  what  all  Presbyterian  ministers  should  preach,  if  they 
were  as  imprudently  honest  in  proclaiming  their  tenets,  as  the 

41 


322 

Reverend  clerk  of  the  General  Assembly.  Their  doctrines,  under 
the  second  commandment,  oblige  them  to  it.  The  doctor  allowed 
the  "  simplicity  of  the  dove"  to  prevail  over  the  "  cunning  of  the 
serpent:"  it  w^as  his  misfortune,  by  proclaiming  openly  the  doctrines 
of  his  Church,  to  give  the  alarm  to  the  friends  of  civil  and  reli- 
gious liberty  ;  and  hence,  he  is  called  a  "  busy  and  loquacious 
man." 

The  Sunday  School  Union,  in  perfect  harmony  with  these  sen- 
timents— in  various  reports  made  about  the  same  time — had  the 
candour  to  avow  their  desire  and  intention  "  to  force  out  of  circu- 
lation,''^ such  elementary  books  as  did  not  coincide  with  their 
views — to  "  revise  and  alter" — to  become,  in  their  own  language, 
*'  the  DICTATORS  to  the  consciences  of  thousands  of  im- 
mortal BEINGS."  And  what  were  their  anticipations  of  reward 
for  this  labour  of  love?     They  themselves  explain  it.     "  In   ten 

YEARS,  OR  CERTAINLY  IN  TWENTY,  THE  POLITICAL  POWER  OF  OUR 
COUNTRY  WOULD  BE  IN  THE  HANDS  OF  MEN,  WHOSE  CHARACTERS  HAVE 
BEEN    FORMED    UNDER    THE    INFLUENCE    OF    SABBATH    SCHOOLS."  (1) 

It  is  generally  known,  that  Presbyterians  soon  became  the  pro- 
minent and  efficient  managers  of  all  the  concerns  of  the  Sunday 
School  Union.  It  was  under  their  supervision  and  authority,  that 
these  bold  and  daring  purposes  were  thus  publicly  avowed. 

They  proclaim  themselves  "  dictators  to  the  consciences  of 
thousands,"  by  ^^  altering^  ^  the  sources  of  early  information,  and 
they  look  forward  to  the  time,  when  the  "  political  power  of  our 
country  shall  be  in  the  hands  of  men,  whose  characters  have  been 
formed  under  this  dictation." 

The  gentleman  will  tell  you,  that  some  of  our  most  respectable 
citizens  are,  or  have  been,  managers  in  this  institution.  I  would 
not  detract  one  iota  from  their  respectability.  But  the  more  res- 
pectable they  are,  the  more  reason  there  is  to  dread  a  religion, 
the  influence  of  which  could  so  far  pervert  their  judgment.  "  If 
these  things  be  done  in  the  green  wood,  says  the  Scripture,  what 
shall  it  be  in  the  dry?''''  If  respectable  men  can  so  far  forget 
what  is  due  to  the  civil  and  religious  rights  of  the  American 
people,  as  to  become  "  dictators,"  to  the  "  consciences"  of  con- 
fiding childhood,  merely  because  the  second  commandment  of  the 
Presbyterian  creed  requires  of  them,  "  according  to  each  one's 
place  and  calling,  to  remove  all  false  worship,  and  all  the  monu- 
ments of  idolatry;"  then,  sir,  you  may  imagine  what  it  will  be 
when  these  same  principles  are  brought  to  operate  on  men  of  bad, 
or  of  no  character.  That  is  the  aim  of  their  effort  now.  Their 
object  is  to  stir  up — the  mob. 

No  Christian  can  entertain  much  respect  for  the  character  of 
Thomas  Jefferson,  who  is  known  to  have  had  little  or  no  respect 
for  the  Christian's  religion.     But,  viewed   as   a  statesman,  his 

(1)  Appendix  to  Second  An.  Rep.  S.  S.  U.  1826,  p.  93. 


323 

character  appears  in  a  very  different  light.  In  political  sagacity, 
in  the  direct  or  indirect  bearings  of  religious  or  political  principles, 
he  was  a  deep  reader  of  the  human  heart,  and  thoroughly  in- 
structed. He  warned  his  country  against  the  possible  danger 
which  might  arise  from  the  monarchical  or  other  predilections, 
that  might  be  introduced  by  emigrants.  But  he  warned  it  also 
against  a  danger  more  immediate,  for  his  knowledge  of  which  he 
depended  not  on  speculation,  but  on  facts.  This  was  the  danger 
growing  out  of  the  superior  intolerance,  for  which  Presbyterianism 
had  been,  and  would  be,  distinguished  in  all  ages.  He  wrote 
history,  and  yet  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  violent  pro- 
ceedings of  Presbyterians  within  the  last  twelve  months,  may  see 
that  he  wrote  prophecy  at  the  same  time.  In  vol.  iv.,  p.  358, 
Letter  clxvii.  he  says  : — 

"  The  atmosphere  of  our  country  is  unquestionably  charged 
with  a  threatening  cloud  of  fanaticism,  lighter  in  some  parts, 
denser  in  others,  but  too  heavy  in  all.  I  had  no  idea,  however, 
that  in  Pennsylvania,  the  cradle  of  toleration,  and  freedom 
OF  religion,  it  could  have  risen  to  the  height  you  describe. 
This  7nust  be  oiving  to  the  growth  of  Fresbyteriariism.  Here, 
Episcopalian  and  Presbyterian,  Methodist  and  Baptist,  join 
together  iyi  hymning  their  Maker,  listen  with  attention  and  de- 
votion to  each  other^s  preachers,  and  all  mix  in  society  ivith  per- 
fect harmony.  It  is  not  so  in  the  districts  where  Presbyterianism 
prevails  undividedly.  Their  ambition  and  tyranny  would 
tolerate  no  rival,  if  they  had  power.  Systematical  at  grasp- 
ing at  an  ascendancy  over  all  other  sects,  they  aim  at  engross- 
ing the  education  of  the  country  ;  are  hostile  to  every  insti- 
tution that  they  do  not  direct;  are  jealous  at  seeing  others  begin 
to  attend  at  all  to  that  object.''^ 

On  the  same  subject,  he  says,  in  his  letter  to  William  Short, 
p.  322  :— 

"  The  Presbyterian  clergy  are  the  loudest,  the  most  in- 
tolerant of  all  sects ;  the  most  tyrannical  and  ambitious  ; 
ready  at  the  word  of  the  lawgiver,  if  such  a  word  could  now  be 
obtained,  to  put  the  torch  to  the  pile,  and  to  rekindle  in  this 
virgin  hemisphere  the  flames  in  which  their  oracle,  Calvin,  con- 
sumed the  poor  Servetus,  because  he  could  not  subscribe  the  pro- 
position of  Calvin,  that  magistrates  have  a  right  to  exter- 
minate all  heretics  to  Calvinistic  creed.  They  pant  to  re- 
establish, BY  LAW,  that  holy  inquisition,  which  they  can  now 
only  infuse  into  public  opinion.''^  Be  assured,  sir,  Thomas  Jef- 
ferson understood  the  genius  of  Presbyterianism,  not  in  its  theo- 
logical deformity,  but  as  a  statesman,  in  its  bearings  upon  the 
principles  we  are  now  discussing;  viz.,  "civil  and  religious 
liberty." 

But  we  have  otiier  testimony  besides  that  of  Thomas  Jefferson. 
We  have  those  who  are  good  Presbyterian  theologians,  explaining 


324 

the  intolerant  doctrines  which  the  gentleman  would  disguise,  hy 
pretending  that  nobody  ever  thouglit  of  them,  except  Dr.  Ely,  who 
is  "a  busy,  loquacious  man."  We  have,  in  our  own  city,  tlie 
testimony  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wilie,  a  gentleman  of  learning  and 
humanity,  from  whose  breast  not  even  the  intolerance  of  the  creed 
he  defends  has  been  able  to  drain  the  milk  of  kindness  to  his 
brother — man.  The  testimony  of  this  writer  is  unanswerable 
proof  of  the  arguments  which  I  have  already  deduced  from  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  The  gentleman  will  tell  you 
that  Dr.  Wilie  is  a  Reformed  Presbyterian.  But  I  can  tell  you, 
and  my  opponent  will  not  venture  to  gainsay  the  statement,  that 
the  principles  now  maintained  by  Dr.  Wilie  are  the  true  principles 
of  honest  primitive  Presbyterianism.  They  are  the  principles  of 
the  Westminster  Confession.  The  work  from  which  I  am  about 
to  quote,  is  a  short  doctrinal  treatise  on  the  "  Duty  of  Magistrates 
and  Ministers,"  entitled  the  "Two  Sons  of  Oil,"  and  published 
by  Dr.  Wilie,  in  1803.  The  audience  and  the  public  will  judge 
of  the  principles  ; — in  regard  to  which  the  author  says,  in  his  short 
Preface,  "  The  time  has  been  when  the  ivhole  body  of  Presbyte- 
rians., in  Scotland,  England,  and  Ireland,  unanimously  sub- 
scribed them.'''' 

The  first  object  of  the  argument  is  to  show  that  the  doctrine  of 
what  is  called  "  Union  of  Church  and  State,"  is  conformable 
to  the  law  of  God,  in  the  institution  of  the  two  great  ordinances 
of  "  Magistracy  AND  Ministry."  The  second  is  to  show  that 
the  government  of  the  United  States  and  the  state  governments  are 
NOT  MORAL  ORDINANCES  OF  GoD,  precisely  because  they  reject 
these  notions  of  a  scriptural  magistracy,  and  allow  universal 
LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE.  What  is  definitive  in  support  of  my 
argument,  and  in  showing  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian 
religion  are  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  is,  that  to  esta- 
blish the  above  points,  the  author  of  the  "Two  Sons  of  Oil" 
quotes  repeatedly  the  text  of  the  Westminster  Confession — the 
present  creed  of  the  General  Assembly. 

On  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  about  the  magistrates'  being 
"nursing  fathers"  to  the  church.  Dr.  Wilie  speaks  out  with  a  de- 
gree of  manly  candour  and  fearlessness,  M'hich  does  him  credit. 
"j^e  (the  magistrate)  ought,  by  his  civil  power,  to  remove  all 
external  impediments  to  the  true  religion  and  worship  of  Gody 
whether  they  be  persons,  or  things ;  such  as  persecution,  pro- 
faneness,  heresy,  idolatry,  and  their  abettors,  as  did  Asa, 
Hezekiah,  Josiah,  and  other  pious  Jdngs.^\\)  Now  this  is  plain 
dealing.  This  is  the  end,  and  Dr.  Ely's  "  Christian  party  in 
politics"  is  the  means  by  which  to  accomplish  it.  If  the  gentle- 
man denies  this  doctrine — he  denies  his  faith.  It  is  neither  more 
nor  less,  than  what  his  creed  requires  of  all  Presbyterians,  under 

(l)TwoSon»ofOil,  p.  19. 


325 

the  second  commandment,  viz.,  to  "remove,  according  to  each 
one's  place  and  calling,  all  false  worship,  and  all  the 
monuments  of  idolatry.''^  Of  the  want  of  qualifications  for  the 
ministry,  the  candid  Presbyterian  writer  whom  I  have  already 
quoted,  says, — "  Such  are  the  clouds  of  illiterate,  Methodist  lo- 
custs, which  darken  the  horizon  of  these  States the  infu- 
riate zeal  with  which  they  propagate  their  poisonous  doctrines, 
resembles  much  the  character  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  men- 
tioned in  Matthew  xxiii.  15."  (1)  In  this  assembly,  it  has  suited  the 
gentleman  to  be  loud  and  long  in  the  praise  of  the  American  Gene- 
ral and  State  Constitutions,  inasmuch  as  this  audience  respects  the 
Constitutions,  and  do  not  know  his  creed. 

Now,  the  y«c^  is,  that  the  Constitution  and  the  doctrines  of  the 
Presbyterian  religion  .are  directly  opposed,  one  to  the  other. 
Hence,  the  stricter  sort  of  that  denomination  condemn  the  whole 
political  system.  Their  reasons  are,  that  first,  the  federal  Con- 
stitution does  not  even  recognise  the  existence  of  God.  (2)  Se- 
cond, That  the  State  Constitutions  contain  "positive  immorality." 
And  what  is  this  immorality  ?  "  Their  recognition  of  such  rights 
of  conscience'^  as  are  contrary  to  sound  Presbyterianism.  (3) 
"  The  government  gives  a  legal  security  and  establishment  to 
gross  heresy,  blasphemy,  and  idolatry,  under  the  notion  of 

LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE."  (4) 

The  Confession  of  Faith  teaches,  as  a  doctrine,  that  the  "  civil 
magistrates  are  nursing  fathers  to  the  Church^  And  the  gen- 
tleman pretends  not  to  understand  this  perversion  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, as  containing  anything  at  which  the  friends  of  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty  need  feel  alarmed.  Let  him  see  its  explanation  in 
Dr.  Ely's  "  Christian  party  in  politics."  Let  him  read  its  mean- 
ing in  the  "  Two  Sons  of  Oil."  "  Kings  shall  be  thy  nursing 
fathers.  TVould  he  not  be  a  hard-hearted  father,  who  would  put 
his  CHILD  upon  the  same  footing  with  the  wolves,  tigers,  and 

OTHER  VORACIOUS  BEASTS  of  prCy  ?       Thc  POLITICAL   FATHER,  who 

leaves  the  child  truth  in  the  jaws  of  eneinies,  still  more  deadly, 
cannot  be  allowed  to  possess  much  more  tender  feelings.  Will 
the  Church  of  Christ  enjoy  no  other  privilege  than  this,  '  by 
sucking  the  breast  of  kings?'  "  (5) 

In  short,  I  put  it  to  every  honest  member  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  whether  there  is  not  a  palpable  contradiction,  between  his 
implied  oath  as  a  citizen,  and  his  implied  oath  as  a  Presbyterian. 
As  a  Presbyterian  he  binds  himself  to  "  remove,  according  to  his 
place  and  calling,  all  false  worship,  and  all  the  monuments  of 
idolatry."  As  a  citizen,  he  binds  himself  to  support  the  Consti- 
tution, and  consequently,  to  protect  "  all  false  worship,  and  all  the 
monuments  of  idolatry."     Consequently,  he  binds  himself  to  "  re- 

(1)  Two  Sons  of  Oil,  p.  31.  (2)  Ibid.  p.  34. 

(.3)  Ibid.  p.  3.5.  (4)   Ibid.  (5)  Ibid.  p.  38. 


326 

moi'e"  the  very  things  which  he  binds  himself  to  protect,  and  not 
*'  remove  !^^  If  he  tells  us  that  he  can  keep  both,  he  must  either 
be  a  fool,  or  else  believe  those  to  whom  he  makes  the  assertion  to 
be  fools.  He  swears,  either  actually  or  implicitly,  of  the  same 
thing,  that  he  will  "  remove,"  and  that  he  will  not  "  remove"  it. 
Which  of  these  contradictory  oaths  will  he  keep?  If  he  keeps 
his  Frtsbyterian  oath,  he  is  a  traitor  to  the  Constitution,  a  foe  to 
the  rights  of  conscience,  to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  a  dan- 
gerous citizen.  If,  on  the  other,  he  keeps  his  civil  oath,  he  is  a 
hypocrite,  and  a  traitor  towards  God.  For,  as  a  Presbyterian,  he 
is  obliged  to  believe  that  God  has  commanded  him  to  remove  all 
false  20  or  ship ;  and,  instead  of  obeying  God,  he  tuins  round,  and 
swears  to  support  a  Constitution  which  protects  all  false  worship ! 
To  be  an  honest  man,  therefore,  he  must  renounce  one  or  other 
of  these  incompatible  obligations.  If  his  creed  is  correct,  the  Con- 
stitution is  a  document  of  iniquity — opposed  to  the  commandment 
of  God.  If  the  Constitution  is  correct,  he  ought  to  renounce  his 
creed.  But,  at  all  events,  it  is  manifest,  that,  under  this  govern- 
ment, the  Presbyterians  have  not  liberty  of  conscience.  It  will 
not  allow  them  to  keep  the  commandments  of  Jehovah,  by  re- 
moving "  all  false  worship,"  as  the  Almighty  has  appointed  in  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.  This  is  the  reason  why  the 
honest  Presbyterians — the  Covenanters,  whose  orthodoxy  in  the 
faith,  the  gentleman  will  not  dare  to  deny,  reject  the  American 
Constitutions  as  not  being  a  moral  ordinance  of  God.  This  is 
the  reason  why  Dr.  Ely  would  prefer,  for  his  "  chief  magistrate, 
a  sound  Presbyterian."  This  is  the  reason  why  the  Sunday-mail 
experiment  was  tried.  This,  in  fine,  is  the  reason  why  the  Pres- 
byterian parsons  have,  in  such  numbers,  entered  into  a  political 
conspiracy  against  their  Catholic  fellow-citizens.  If  they  can 
only  enlist  the  other  Protestant  denominations  in  aiding  them  to 
remove  the  "  monuments  of  idolatry,"  they  will  know  how  to  dis- 
pose of  their  allies  afterwards,  and  the  removal  of  "  all  false 
worships"  will  follow,  as  a  matter  of  course. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  is  notori- 
ously opposed  to  the  civil  and  religious  liberty  guaranteed  by  the 
American  Constitutions.  Yet  they  are  held  to  be  sound  in  the 
faith,  by  their  brethren  of  the  General  Assembly.  What  does 
this  prove?  The  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  another  head  of  the 
original  hydra  of  intolerance,  the  representative  of  which  is  the 
gentleman's  colleague,  holds  the  same  anti-American  doctrine  that 
I  have  pointed  out  in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  All  of  them  hold, 
as  a  tenet  revealed  by  Almighty  God,  that  magistrates  of  this  Re- 
public are,  (or  rather  ought  to  be,)  "  nursing  fathers  to  the 
Church."  The  Dutch  Confession  says  : — "  And  their  office  is 
not  only  to  have  regard  unto,  arid  to  watch  for  the  welfare  of  the 
civil  state;  but  also,  that  they  protect  the  sacred  ministry ;  and 
THUS  may  REMOVE  all  idolatry  and  FALSE  WORSHIP,  that 


327 

the  kingdom  of  anti-Christ  may  be  thus  destroyed,  and  the  king' 
dom  of  Christ  be  thus  promoted.''"'  {\)  "Thus" — i.  e.,  by  the 
*'  nursing  fathers,"  the  magistrates  !!...."  Wherefore,"  says 
this  liberal  and  charitable  document,  "  we  detest  all  Anabaptists 
and  other  seditious  people,  &c."  (2)  And  why  detest  the  "  Ana- 
baptists?'' Because  Me?/ denied  that  the  magistrates  had  any 
right  to  meddle  with  the  rights  of  conscience.  For  this,  they  are 
*'  detested,"  and  ranked  with  "  seditious  people." 

Now,  I  would  leave  it  to  any  man  of  sound  mind,  and  impartial 
judgment,  in  the  United  States,  to  say,  whether  these  several 
tenets  of  the  Presbyterian  creed  are  not  pregnant  with  all  that  is 
destructive  of  religious  liberty,  and  the  rights  of  conscience. 
Their  creed  is  not,  indeed,  as  arrogantly  intolerant  in  the  letter, 
as  it  was  before  the  rights  of  men,  proclaimed  at  the  period  of 
American  Independence,  obliged  them  to  curtail  its  tyrannical  pre- 
tensions. But  the  gentleman  reckons  without  his  host,  when  he 
represents  me  admitting,  that  it  "  is  now  right."  He  asks  why 
the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  and  the  Covenanters,  were  not 
obliged  to  change  their  persecuting  principles,  as  well  as  their 
brethren  of  the  General  Assembly.  I  know  no  reason,  except 
that  they  appear  to  have  been  more  consistent,  and  less  time-serv- 
ing. They  seem  to  have  felt  that  it  was  too  late  in  the  day,  to 
persuade  the  world,  that  Presbyterianism  could  be  other  than  a 
persecuting  creed.  They  judged  rightly;  for  at  this  day  they 
would  be  trusted  with  tlie  guardianship  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  just  as  fast,  and  as  far,  as  those  who  thought  it  more  ad- 
viseable  to  hide  the  more  ugly  features  of  their  religion,  in  hypo- 
critical conformity  with  the  shiftings  of  the  political  gale. 

The  gentleman  wishes  me  to  repeat  my  refutation  of  assertions 
against  the  Catholic  faith.  I  refer  the  reader  to  my  vindication 
during  the  first  six  evenings.  He  says  that  "  Father  Green"  car- 
ried his  musket  during  the  Revolution.  To  which  I  reply,  that 
for  this  he  deserves  well  of  his  country.  But  Catholics  did  the 
same.  The  Catholic  armies  and  officers  of  France  and  Poland 
helped  "  Father  Green"  to  survive  the  day  of  battle.  The  gen- 
tleman says,  what  is  unfounded  in  fact,  when  he  represents  the 
said  "  Father  Green"  as  being  "  hateful"  to  me.  He  is  to  me  an 
object  of  great  indifference  ;  and,  I  trust,  that  I  can  live  without 
hating  any  one. 

It  will  be  time  enough  for  the  gentleman  to  call  on  the  Catho- 
lics to  change  their  creed,  when  he  shall  have  proven  that  they 
ever  held,  as  "  a  tenet  of  faith  or  morals,"  any  of  the  avowed  doc- 
trines of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  on  the  subject  of 
domineering  over  the  religious  rights  of  other  denominations. 
The  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  as  immutable  as  the 
truths  of  God.     Men  professing  those  doctrines  have,  sometimes, 

(1)  Page  486.  (2)  Ibid. 


328 

persecuted,  but  their  laith  did  not  require  them  to  do  so  ;  they 
would  have  been  better  Catholics  if  they  had  left  it  alone.  But 
the  Presbyterian  cannot  comply  with  the  revealed  tenets  of  his 
FAITH,  without  being  a  persecutor.     Here  is  the  difference. 

The  gentleman  characterizes  my  charging  "  theocracy  on  Pres- 
byterians,'' and  indeed,  "  on  all  the  Calvinislic  sects,"  as  an  in- 
stance of  "  audacity  in  assertion.''^  By  this,  it  is  plain,  that  he 
is  ignorant  of  tlie  history  of  his  own  Church.  Is  it  not  known  to 
every  man  of  information,  that  Calvin  and  Knox  justified  their 
shedding  of  blood,  by  claiming  for  their  magistrates  the  rights 
and  duties  exercised  by  the  magistrates  under  the  old  law  ?  Nay, 
is  not  the  present  Confession  of  Faith  crammed  with  texts  and 
references  to  the  same  effect?  Is  it  not  on  this  principle  that  they 
claim  a  divine  right  to  "  burn  our  graven  images  with  fire,"  and 
to  "  remove  all  false  worship  ?"  I  should  not  wonder  any  more 
to  find  the  gentlenian  ignorant,  as  he  is,  of  Catholic  doctrine,  when 
he  is  so  palpably  unacquainted  with  his  own. 

The  opinions  of  Robinson  and  De  Pradt,  two  enemies  of 
the  Catholic  religion,  are  of  as  much  weight  in  the  argument 
as  his  own  opinion.  He  tells  us,  on  the  contrary,  that  Euro- 
pean Presbyterians  were  great  democrats.  The  attestations  of 
history  are,  that  they  were  invariably  seditious  under  the  civil 
governments  of  other  dejiominations,  and  as  invariably  tyraiits 
when  other  denominations  were  under  them.  The  dethronement, 
and  violent  death  of  Charles  I.,  and  the  penalty  of  imprisonment, 
for  reading  the  Episcopal  Common  Prayer  Book,  are  proofs  of 
their  character  under  this  double  aspect. 

The  gentleman,  unable  to  find  facts  for  the  vindication  of  his 
cause,  calls  in  Hooker  and  Bancroft,  two  zealous  Protestants,  to 
say  a  good  word  for  Calvin  and  for  Calvinists.  This  proves,  that 
the  evidence  of  facts  is  felt  to  be  strong  against  the  culprit.  But 
the  audience  will  judge  of  them  by  their  deeds  and  avowed  prin- 
ciples, and  not  by  the  fiourishes  of  rhetoric  employed  by  their 
friends.  The  gentleman  could  have  made  almost  as  good  a  pane- 
gyric himself. 

I  showed  in  my  last  speech,  that  the  doctrine  of  "  predestina- 
tion," as  held  by  Presbyterians,  has  an  adverse  bearing  on  the  civil 
and  religious  rights  of  all  other  denominations  of  Christians.  And 
the  gentleman  answers  my  argument  by  asking  me  to  explain  a  text 
of  Scripture  for  him  !  This  shows  that  he  understands  the  force 
of  the  argument,  and  cannot  meet  it.  Then  let  it  remain  unan- 
swered, to  teach  others,  that  when  Presbyterians  talk  about  "  civil 
and  religious  liberty,"  they  ought  to  be  acquainted  with  their 
own  doctrine,  and  not  rush  into  a  position  in  which  they  cannot 
help  appearing  a  little  ridiculous. 

But  though  he  cannot  meet  the  argument,  he  can  quote  doggrel 
ribaldry,  abusive  of  the  Catholic  religion  and  practices.  This, 
however,  is  no  argument — and  the  audience  know  it.     The  infidels 


329 

can  write  and  utter  many  stupid  witticisms  against  Christ  and  his 
religion,  without  being  able  to  affect  the  solidity  of  Christianity. 
So  with  the  gentleman;  he  has  studied  Catholic  Theology,  as  far 
as  the  "  inquisition,"  "  hocus-pocus,"  "  Tetzel,  and  the  sale  of  in- 
dulgences— "  and  few  of  the  clique  to  which  he  belongs,  have 
gone  farther.  Macintosh's  testimony  is  like  that  of  Hooker  and 
Bancroft — opinions — mere  Protestant  opinions. 

The  gentleman  states,  as  facts,  that  St.  /Vugustine,  and  the  flower 
of  the  Catholich  Church,  held  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  on  what 
are  called  in  that  system  of  fatalism,  "  the  decrees  of  God."  Now 
the  Presbyterian  doctrine  is  that  God  ^^foreordained  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass.'"  (I)  Hence,  since  evil — murder,  adultery,  ca- 
lumny, crime  of  every  description,  "come  to  pass,"  it  follows  ac- 
cording to  this  doctrine,  that  God  has  ''foreordained'^  them.  And 
he  tells  us  that  Augustine  and  the  flower  of  the  Catholic  Church 
held  this  blasphemous  and  dangerous  principle  !  That  many  of  the 
Reformers  held  it,  I  admit,  but  their  doctrines  have  been  reformed 
in  their  turn,  by  their  successors.  And  the  only  denomination,  that 
I  know,  who  have  not  become  ashamed  of  the  avowal  of  this  article, 
are  the  high-toned  Presbyterians.  I  defy  the  proof,  that  it  is  held 
by  the  other  denominations  of  Protestants,  whom  he  has  men- 
tioned. 

He  says  that  the  "  Presbyterian  creed"  avows  that  all  men  are 
to  be  protected  in  the  exercise  of  their  religion,  "  whether  true  or 
false.''''  Yes,  but  what  comes  of  the  second  commandment  in 
the  mean  time?  The  Stale  had  determined  that  all  religions 
should  be  protected.  But  when,  as  Dr.  Ely  says,  we  shall  have 
a  "  Christian  party  in  politics,"  and  a  "  sound  Presbyterian  for 
our  chief  magistrate — "  then  we  shall  learn  the  meaning  of  that 
divine  precept  of  the  decalogue,  that  obliges  the  Presbyterians,  "ac- 
cording to  each  one's  place  and  calling,  to  remove  all  false  wor- 
ship and  all  the  monuments  of  idolatry,^'  This  is  the  kind  of 
"  protection"  Which  Presbyterianism  never  failed  to  afford  when  it 
had  the  power — as  I  shall  prove  in  the  sequel  of  this  argument. 
The  concluding  portion  of  the  gentleman's  speech  does  not  deserve 
a  reply. 

(1)  Confession  of  Faith,  page  321. 


42 


i;jO 


"  Is  the  Frcshylerian  Iieli,s(io7i,  in  any  or  all  of  its  prin- 
ciples  or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  V^ 


AFFIRMATIVE  II.— MR.  BRECKINRIDGE. 

Mr.  President  : — 
Nothing  is  farther  from  my  intention  than  "  to  insult"  the  Rev. 
gentleman  by  calling  him  a  Papist.  It  is  only  calling  things  by 
their  proper  names.  On  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  the  temper  of 
the  times  and  the  spirit  of  the  people,  make  it  advisable  to  keep 
the  Roman  monarchy  out  of  view.  But  in  Papal  (I  beg  pardon) 
"  Catholic''''  Europe,  they  glory  in  the  very  title  which  Mr.  H. 
rejects  with  scorn.  Baronius,  the  great  historian  of  Rome,  says 
(in  his  Marty rology,)  glorying  in  the  name  "  The  modern  here- 
tics, call  Catholics  papists:  certainly  they  could  not  give  them  a 
more  glorious  title.  Let  it  therefore  he  our  praise  while  living, 
and  our  epitaph  when  dead,  ever  to  be  called  papists.'''' — And  Go- 
ther  perpetuates  the  sanction  of  this  name,  by  calling  his  book 
"The  Papist  misrepresented."  What  shall  we  call  him?  A 
Catholic  ?  But  that  were  to  give  up  the  whole  question  in  debate 
between  him  and  Protestants ;  for  the  name  imports  that  his  is  the 
universal,  and  therefore  the  only  true  church;  and  that,  without 
its  faith,  none  can  be  saved!  shall  we  admit  this?  The  canon- 
law  which  is  binding  on  every  priest  and  member  upon  earth  goes 
still  farther,  and  expressly  excludes  from  salvation  all  who  are 
not  subject  to  the  Pope.  Omnes  Christi  fidele^  de  necessitate 
salutis  subsunt  Bomano  Pontifici,  qui  utrumque  gladium  habet 
a  nemine  autem  jiulicalur.  ( 1 )  The  book  is  now  in  my  hands,  and 
is  the  property  of  a  Roman  Catholic  Priest.)  "It  is  necessary  to 
the  salvation  of  all  the  faithful  in  Christ,  that  they  be  subject  to 
the  Pope  of  Rome,  who  holds  both  swords  ;  but  is  himself  judged 
of  no  man.''''  Here  in  one  sentence  it  is  declared,  1,  That  all 
who  are  tiot  papists  perish:  2,  That  the  Pope  has  control  of 
civil\a.s  well  as  of  religious  affairs :  3,  Yet  that  he  is  above  all 
human  jurisdiction.  Shall  we  not  then  call  his  servant  and  priest 
by  his  name?  Truly,  Mr.  President,  I  think  the  gentleman  ought 
to  carry  his  shame  to  the  thing  signified,  and  not  stop  at  the  name. 
He  has  much  more  reason  to  be  ashamed  of  the  title  of  ^^  Jesuit,'''' 
in  which  he  glories,  calling  it  "  «  compliment,'^  and  this  too  in  the 
face  of  all  the  disclosures  made  by  me  on  that  subject! 

(I)  Extrav.  tit.  viii.  chap.  i. 


331 

It  is  but  too  evident,  from  the  tone  of  the  gentleman's  remarks, 
on  my  account  of  the  origin  of  this  Controversy,  that  he  feels  their 
force  not  a  little.  His  attacks  on  the  Presbyterian  Church  at  laro-e, 
are  most  virulent  and  bitter.  It  is  hard  to  say,  whether  there  be 
a  greater  dearth  of  argument,  or  profusion  of  ferocious  scandal. 
''He  draws  upon  his  imagination,  and  his  passions,  for  his  facts 
— and  on  his  memory  for  his  ivit.''  "  Fools" — "  Hypocritical 
conformity  to  the  shiftings  of  the  political  gale,"  &c.  &c.,  flow 
with  elegant  ease  from  the  refined  and  lordly  priest,  "  iw  whose 
person"  (according  to  his  Catechism,)  we  venerate  the  power 
AND  person  of  OUR  LoRD  Jesus  Christ."     What  a  contrast ! 

From  the  fact,  that  it  was  at  his  own  instance  that  the  "Presby- 
terian Religion"  was  brought  under  review  at  this  time,  we  may 
learn  how  sincere  he.  is  in  charging  us  with  wishing  to  deprive 
Papists  of  their  rights,  by  freely  examining  their  principles.  On 
this  whole  subject,  Dr.  Beecher,  whom  the  gentleman  seems  most 
cordially  to  hate  and  fear,  has  well  expressed  the  feelings  of  Pres- 
byterians, when  he  says,  in  a  recent  publication: 

"But  have  not  the  Catholics  just  as  good  a  right  to  their  reli- 
gion as  other  denominations  have  to  theirs  ?"  I  have  said  so.  I 
not  only  admit  their  equal  rights,  but  insist  upon  them  ;  and  am 
prepared  to  defend  their  rights  as  I  am  those  of  my  own  and  other 
Protestant  denominations.  The  Catholics  have  a' perfect  right  to 
proselyte  the  nation  to  their  faith  if  they  are  able  to  do  it.  But  1 
too  have  tlie  right  of  preventing  it  if  I  am  able.  They  have  a 
right  freely  to  propagate  their  opinions  and  arguments ;  and  I  too 
have  a  right  to  apprise  the  nation  of  their  political  bearings  on  our 
republican  institutions.  They  have  a  right  to  test  the  tendencies 
of  Protestanism  by  an  appeal  to  history:  and  I,  by  an  appeal  to 
history,  have  a  right  to  illustrate  the  coincidence  between  the  po- 
litical doctrines  and  the  practice  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  to 
show  that  always  they  have  been  hostile  to  civil  and  religious  li- 
berty. The  Catholics  claim  and  exercise  the  liberty  of  animadvert- 
ing on  the  doctrines  and  doings  of  Protestants,  and  we  do  not  com- 
plain of  it; — and  why  should  they  or  their  friends  complain  that 
we  in  turn  should  animadvert  on  the  political  maxims  and  doings 
of  the  Catholic  Church?  Must  Catholics  have  all  the  liberty — 
their  own  and  ours  too  ?  Can  they  not  endure  the  reaction  of  free 
inquiry  ?  Must  we  lay  our  hand  on  our  mouth  in  their  presence, 
and  stop  the  press  ? — Let  them  count  the  cost,  and  such  as  cannot 
bear  the  scrutiny  of  free  inquiry,  return  where  there  is  none ;  for 
though  we  would  kindly  accommodate  them  in  all  practicable  ways, 
we  cannot  surrender  our  rights  for  their  accommodation." 

But  the  gentleman  denies  that  other  Protestant  denominations  in 
the  United  States  participate  with  Presbyterians  in  their  views 
and  feelings  about  popery,  except  as  ditpes.  He  owns  that  "  these 
denominations  may  have  been  used  by  Presbyterians  to  stir  up 
this  fanatical  excitement."     He  is  certainly  very  complimentary 


332 

to  them  !  He  admits  that  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  which  he 
styles  "  another  head  of  the  original  liydra  of  intolerance,  the 
representative  of  which  is  the  gentleman's  colleague,"  (Dr.  Brown- 
lee,  whom  popery  has  reason  to  mourn  was  ever  born,)  is  in  har- 
mony with  us.  This  is  surely  no  mean  ally.  He  admits  also, 
that  "  our  step-brethren,  the  Congregationalists  of  New  England," 
are  with  us.  They  are  of  themselves  a  nation;  and  the  cradle  of 
liberty  is  in  their  midst.  But  the  naughty  Yankees  will  not  let 
the  Pope  rock  it,  or  put  the  spirit  of  liberty  (nursed  in  it,j  to  sleep, 
and  Mr.  Hughes  is  very  angry  at  it — What  a  pity  ! !  But  does 
the  gentleman  doubt  the  feelings  of  American  Episcopalians  ?  Let 
him  ask  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  or  the  Gambler  Observer,  or  the  Epis- 
copal (Philadelphia)  Recorder.  Does  he  doubt  the  feelings  of  the 
Baptist  Church:  or  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church?  surely  the 
*'  Catholic  Herald"  does  not  exchange  with  the  "  Christian  Advo- 
cate," or  the  "  Christian  Watchman."  If  the  gentleman  will 
bring  me  the  certificate  of  one  Baptist  or  one  Methodist  minister 
of  Christ,  in  the  Utiited  States,  who  believes  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrines,  as  a  system,  are  favourable  to  civil  or  religi- 
ous liberty,  I  will  then  own  that,  out  of  many  thousands,  I  have 
mistaken  one.  The  gentleman  will  remember  Wesley !  His 
views  are  strong,  but  they  have  never  been  answered.  In  letter 
No.  15,  of  our  late  Controversy,  the  gentleman  charged  that  cele- 
brated man  with  intolerance,  and  tried  to  prove  it,  by  a  garbled 
extract,  plucked  out  of  its  connexions.  In  a  subsequent  letter,  I 
cited  the  whole  paragraph,  it  is  as  follows  : 

"  With  persecution  I  have  nothing  to  do  ;  I  persecute  no  man 
for  his  religious  principles.  Let  there  be  as  boundless  a  freedom 
in  religion  as  any  man  can  conceive.  But  this  does  not  touch  the 
point ;  I  will  set  religion,  true  or  false,  out  of  the  question.  Yet  I 
insist  upon  it  that  no  government,  not  Roman  Catholic,  ought  to 
tolerate  men  of  the  Roman  Catholic  persuasion.  I  prove  this  by  a 
plain  argument,  let  him  answer  it  that  can:  that  no  Roman  Ca- 
tholic does,  or  can  give  security  for  his  allegiance  or  peaceable  be- 
haviour, I  prove  thus  :  It  is  a  Roman  Catholic  maxim  established 
not  by  private  men,  but  by  a  public  council,  that  '  no  faith  is  to 
be  kept  with  heretics.''  This  has  been  openly  avowed  by  the 
Council  of  Constance ;  but  it  never  was  openly  disclaimed.  Whe- 
ther private  persons  avow  or  disavow  it,  it  is  a  fixed  maxim  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  But  as  long  as  it  is  so,  nothing  can  be  more 
plain  than  that  the  members  of  that  church,  can  give  no  reasona- 
ble security  to  any  government,  for  their  allegiance  or  peaceable 
behaviour.  (Here  follow  the  words  quoted  by  Mr.  Hughes.) 
Therefore  they  ought  not  to  be  tolerated  by  any  government^ 
Protestant,  Mahometan,  or  Pagan.  (The  author  proceeds.) 
You  may  say,  '  nay,  but  they  will  take  an  oath  of  allegiance.' 
True,  five  hundred  oaths  ;  but  the  maxim,  *  no  faith  is  to  be  kept 
with  heretics'  sweeps  them  all  away  as  a  spider's  web.     So  that 


335 

still,  no  governors,  that  are  not  Roman  Catholics,  can  have  any 
security  of  their  allegiance.  The  power  of  granting  pardons  for 
all  sins,  past,  present,  and  to  come,  is,  and  has  been  for  many 
centuries,  one  branch  of  his  (the  Pope's)  spiritual  power.  But 
those  who  acknowledged  him  to  have  this  spiritual  power,  can 
give  no  security  for  their  allegiance,  since  they  believe  the  Pope 
can  pardon  rebellions,  high  treasons,  and  all  other  sins  whatever. 
The  power  of  dispensing  with  any  promise,  oath,  or  vow,  is  an- 
other branch  of  the  spiritual  power  of  the  Pope.  All  who  acknow- 
ledge his  spiritual  power  must  acknowledge  this.  But  whoever 
acknowledges  the  dispensing  power  of  the  Pope,  can  give  no  secu- 
rity for  his  allegiance  to  any  government.  Nay,  not  only  the 
Pope,  but  even  a  priest  has  the  power  to  pardon  sins.  This  is 
an  essential  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  they  that  acknow- 
ledge this  cannot  possibly  give  any  security  for  their  allegiance  to 
any  government.  Oaths  are  no  security  at  all,  for  the  priest  can 
pardon  both  perjury  and  high  treason.  Setting,  then,  religion 
aside,  it  is  plain  that,  upon  principles  of  reason,  no  government 
ought  to  tolerate  men  who  cannot  give  any  security  to  that  gov- 
ernment for  their  allegiance  and  peaceable  behaviour ....  Would  I 
wish,  then,  the  Roman  Catholics  to  be  persecuted  ?  I  never  said 
or  hinted  any  such  thing.  I  abhor  the  thought;  it  is  foreign  from 
all  I  have  preached  and  wrote  these  fifty  years.  But  I  would  wish 
the  Romanists  in  England,  (I  had  no  others  in  view,)  to  be  treat- 
ed with  the  same  lenity  that  they  have  been  these  sixty  years ;  to 
be  allowed  both  civil  and  religious  liberty ;  but  not  permitted  to 
undermine  ours."  (2) 

While  Wesley  disclaims  persecution,  he  insists  that  popery  "  un- 
dermines civil  and  religious  liberty"  if  allowed  its  genuine  influences. 
Now  the  American  system  is  one  of  unqualified  and  universal 
protection,  and  is  more  than  toleration;  and  we  glory  in  it,  just 
as  it  is.  But  we  hold  that  no  consistent  Roman  Catholic  can  be 
ex  animo,  an  admirer  of  the  American  system.  The  people, 
happily  false  to  popery,  present  many  noble  examples  of  devoted 
freemen.  The  priests,  they  are  the  monarchists ;  they  are  the 
hierarchy  of  Rome;  they  are  the  church,  the  foes  oi  divine  truth, 
and  human  liberty.  In  these  views,  we  repeat  it,  American  Pro- 
testants as  a  body  agree. 

The  gentleman's  rejoinder  to  my  argument  "  on  the  decrees  of 
God" — as  he  calls  the  doctrine,  halts  to  the  last  degree.  His 
previous  position  was  that  the  doctrine  of  election  led  to  immo- 
rality— and  to  the  destruction  of  a  due  regard  for  the  rights  of 
other  men ;  and  therefore  was  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liber- 
ty. In  reply,  I  forebore  to  discuss  the  truth  of  these  doctrines, 
as  out  of  place  ;  but  yet  presented  d.fcw  passages  of  God's  word, 
by  way  of  nuts  for  his  infallible  interpreter,  begging,  in  passing, 
an  explanation   of  their  sense.     These  passages  (see   my  last 

(2)  See  Wesley's  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  817,  818,  826.) 


334 

speech)  assert  that  moral  liberty  is  secured  by  the  decrees  of  God; 
and  are  therefore  direct  rebutters  to  his  false  logic.  And  what 
does  he  say  1  *'  I  showed  in  my  last  speech  that  the  doctrine  of 
predestination,  as  held  by  Presbyterians,  has  an  adverse  bearing 
on  the  civil  and  leligious  rights  of  all  other  denominations  of 
Christians.  And  the  gentleman  answers  my  argument  by  ask- 
ing me  to  explain  a  text  of  Scripture  for  him  !  This  shows  that 
he  understands  the  force  of  the  argument,  and  cannot  meet  it." 
But  with  all  this  bravado,  what  has  he  done  ?  I  appealed  to  history 
in  proof  of  the /«c^  that  "  Calvinistic  denominations"  and  "  Calvin- 
istic  nations,"  were  foremost  in  the  ranks  of  the  free  and  pros- 
perous and  virtuous.  Did  he  deny  it?  Did  he  disprove  it?  1  have 
already  shown  abundantly  that  popery  is  the  parent  of  vice,  and 
vice  in  its  vilest  forms ;  so  that  if  the  argument  to  immorality  is  of 
any  weight,  as  I  think  it  is  of  much,  his  logic  rebounds  on  his 
cause ;  and  history  is  witness  that  his  principles  have  ruined  it. 
Tacitly  admitting  that  the  denominations  and  nations  enumerated 
by  me,  were  signalized  by  their  liberty  and  virtue,  he  makes  the 
only  effort  possible  to  disengage  himself,  by  denying  that  they 
held  the  doctrines  of  "  the  decrees,"  and  "  predestination."  "  The 
only  denomination  that  I  know,  who  have  not  become  ashamed  of 
the  avowal  of  this  article,  are  the  high-toned  Presbyterians.  I 
defy  the  proof  that  it  is  held  by  the  other  denominations  of 
Protestants  whom  he  has  mentioned."  To  the  proof  then  we  go. 
The  XVIIth  Article  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  while  it  wisely 
guards  against  the  torture  and  perversion  of  this  doctrine,  is  fully 
Calvinistic.  "  Of  Predestination  and  election'"  ^^Predestination 
to  life  is  the  everlasting  purpose  of  God,  whereby  (before  the 
foundations  of  the  world  were  laid,)  he  hath  constantly  de- 
creed by  his  counsel,  secret  to  us,  to  deliver  from  curse  and  dam- 
nation those  whom  he  hath  chosen  in  Christ  out  of  mankind,  and 
to  bring  them  by  Christ  to  everlasting  salvation,  as  vessels  made 
to  honour.  Wherefore,  they  which  he  endued  with  so  excellent 
a  benefit  of  God,  be  called  according  to  God's  purpose,  by  his 
.spirit  working  in  due  season ;  they,  through  grace  obey  the  calling; 
they  be  justified  freely ;  they  be  made  sons  of  God  by  adoption; 
they  be  made  like  the  image  of  his  only  begotten  son  Jesus  Christ; 
they  walk  religiously  in  good  works ;  and  at  length,  by  God's 
mercy,  they  attain  to  everlasting  felicity."  Pray  is  this  no 
"proof?"  It  is  ample  proof  that  the  doctrine  is  Episcopcd ;  and  it 
closes  with  a  charming  refutation  of  tlie  gentleman's  reasoning, 
when  he  says  the  doctrine  leads  to  immorality.  Here,  as  in  our 
Confession,  it  is  declared,  and  facts  prove  it,  that  the  doctrine  calls 
for,  and  its  belief  produces,  good  works. 

When  he  denies  that  the  Baptists  hold  this  doctrine,  he  only 
exposes  his  ignorance.  Let  him  ask  Gill,  Fuller,  Robert  Hall, 
Carey,  Ward,  and  their  standards  of  faith,  for  the  conviction  which 
he  desires.     He  cautiously  denies  that  Augustine  held  this  doc- 


335 

trine.  Proof  (I) — "We  are  therefore  to  understand  calling,  as 
pertaining  to  the  elect ;  not  that  they  were  elected  because  they 
believed  ;  but  that  they  were  elected  in  order  that  they  might  be- 
lieve. God  himself  makes  this  sufficiently  plain,  when  he  says, 
ye  have  not  chosen  me  but  I  have  chosen  you.  For  if  they  were 
elected  because  they  believed,  they  would  themselves  elect  by 
believing  in  him ;  so  that  they  would  inerit  election.  But  he  takes 
all  this  away,  when  he  says,  *  ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have 
chosen  you.'  They  have  not  chosen  (non  elegerunt)  Him,  in  order 
that  he  might  choose  them ;  but  he  chose,  (elegit  eos)  them  that 
they  might  choose  him;  because  his  mercy  prevented  them,  by 
grace,  and  not  by  debt.  Therefore,  He  chose  them  out  of  the 
world,  when  they  lived  in  the  flesh,  but  He  chose  them,  in  him- 
self before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  For  what  does  the 
Apostle  say,  "  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  Him  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world." 

Again;  (2)  ^^ No  one  cometh  to  Christ  unless  it  be  given  to 
him;  and  it  is  given  to  those  ivho  were  chosen  in  Him  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world.''''  (3) 

We  need  not  enter  into  the  proof  as  to  the  twelve  creeds  of  the 
Reformers  ;  for  the  gentleman  admits  that  "  som,e — "  of  them  held 
it.  He  knows  that  nearly  "all"  did.  It  is  true,  some  of  their 
descendants  have  abandoned  these  views.  But  look  at  Scotland, 
England,  Ireland,  Holland,  and  the  United  States  of  North  Ame- 
rica, for  the  liberty,  science,  and  piety  of  those  lands.  Are  they 
not  the  most  free,  enlightened  and  virtuous  of  nations  ?  and  are 
they  not  the  most  Calvinistic : — and  are  not  the  Calvinists  among 
them  abreast  of  any  other  population,  and  far,  far  ahead  of  the 
"  Catholic,"  population,  in  intelligence,  and  piety,  and  good 
order?     Again,  I  say  let  history  reply. 

But  the  gentleman,  in  calling  this  "  a  blasphemous  and  danger- 
ous principle,''^  treads  on  delicate  ground;  for,  strange  as  it  may 
appear,  the  best  part  of  the  Council  of  Trent  (if  such  a  term  be  not 
a  contradiction)  held  to  this  very  doctrine ;  and  the  divided  con- 
venticle actually  trimmed  their  creed  to  heal  the  breach  that  was 
threatened  to  their  infallibilities.  The  Twelfth  Chapter,  sixth 
Session,  in  a  scared  way,  admits  the  truth  of  this  doctrine,  in  the 
following  terms  :  "  That  the  rash  confidence  of  predestination 
is  to  be  avoided.  Let  no  m,an,  while  he  continues  in  this  mortal 
s-tate,  so  far  presume  respecting  the  hidden  mystery  of  divine 
predestination,  as  to  conclude  that  he  is  certainly  07ie  of  the 
predestinate  ;  as  if  it  were  true  that  a  justified  man  ca7inot  sin 


(1)  Book  I.  Chap.  17.  torn.  7.      Of  The  Predestination  of  Saints. 

(2)  Tom.  7.  chap.  10.     "  Of  Perseverance,''  &c. 

(3)  Neminem  venire  ad  Christum  nisi  fueritei  datum ;  ct  eis  dari  qui  in  eo 
electi  sunt  ante  constitutionem  mundi. — Sec  at  large  Corpus  ct  Syntagma 
Confessionum,  &c.  on  Augustine. 


336 

any  more,  or  that  if  he  sin  he  can  assure  himself  of  repentance  ; 
for  no  one  can  knoio  whom  God  hath  chosen  for  himself^  unless 
by  special  revelation.''^  Here  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  is  ac- 
knowledijec]. 

Father  Paul  (referred  to  in  my  last  speech,  but  cautiously  shunned 
by  his  papal  brother  Hughes)  on  the  same  subject,  viz.  predesti- 
nation and  election,  that  man  doeth  nothing,  but  all  is  in  the  will 
of  God ;  thus  writes  : — "  In  examining  the  first  of  these  questions, 
the  opinions  were  divers:  the  most  esteemed  divines  among  them, 
thought  IT  to  be  Catholic,  and  the  contrary,  heresy,  because  the 
good  school-writers,  St.  Thomas,  Scotus,  and  the  rest,  do  so 
think ;  that  is,  that  God,  before  the  creation,  out  of  the  mass  of 
marikind,  hath  elected  by  his  only  and  mere  mercy,  som.e  for 
glory,  for  whom  he  hath  prepared  effectually  the  means  to  ob- 
tain it,  which  is  called  to  predestinate.  That  their  number  is 
certain,  and  determined."  The  writer  goes  on  to  say,  that  they 
quoted  in  proof,  the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans,  in  the  case  of  Esau 
and  Jacob,  and  the  example  oi  the  potter  and  clay,  and  that  ths  apos- 
tle calls  '■^  divine  predestination  and  reprobation  the  height  and 
depth  of  wisdom  unsearchable  and  incomprehensible  ..."  "  They 
added  divers  passages  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  and  infiJiite  authori- 
ties from  St.  Augustine,  because  that  saint  wrote  nothing  in  his 
old  age,  but  in  favour  of  this  doctrine.'^''  {{)  On  page  202  he  adds, 
that  after  the  decree  was  adopted  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans 
wrote  laborious  controversies,  showing  directly  opposite  senses  to 
it;  and,  that  when  it  was  sent  to  the  Pope,  and  he  gave  it  to  his 
friars  and  learned  men  for  consultation,  "  it  was  approved  by  them 
because  every  one  might  understand  it  in  his  own  sense.^^ 

From  this  circle  of  proofs  then,  it  appears,  that  the  doctrine 
"  of  divine  decrees,"  as  held  by  the  Presbyterians,  is  held  now, 
by  the  great  body  of  the  professed  Protestant  Churches,  in  all  those 
countries  most  remarkable  for  the  freedom  of  their  institutions, 
and  the  diftiisive  intelligence  of  the  people;  that  Augustine  rfu/ 
teach  most  clearly  the  same  doctrine  ,  and  that  the  Council  of  Trent 
itself  gave  it  a  .sc«n/?/ existence,  in  its  decrees,  and  enacted  an 
evasive  canon  on  the  subject,  in  order  to  have  unity  without  can- 
dour or  sense. 

As  to  this  doctrine,  I  am  well  aware,  that  many  excellent  men, 
and  some  Christian  denominations,  differ  with  us.  But  they  have 
the  candour  to  own,  that  it  makes  us  not  the  less  respectful  of  the 
rights  of  man,  and  of  the  obligations  of  religion.  Indeed,  they 
have,  many  of  them,  paid  a  generous  homage  to  the  virtues  of 
"  Calvinists,"  as  we  are  sometimes  called.  It  was  to  this  pur- 
pose we  cited  the  testimony  of  the  great  Hooker,  who  was  no 
Presbyterian,  of  the  elegant  and  impartial  Bancroft,  a  Unita- 
rian, and  of  Sir  James  Macintosh,  a  great  statesman,  and  not  a 

(1)  Hist.  Counc.  Trent,  Book  II.  p.  196.     Lond.  edit.  1676. 


3S7 

Presbyterian.  Such  testimony  io  facts,  are  not  mere  '*  opinions;" 
and  from  learned,  impartial,  and  virtuous  men  of  other  denomina- 
tions, have  great  weight.  Besides,  this  was  called  for  by  the  dis- 
honourable course  pursued  by  Mr.  Hughes.  He  agreed  in  "  the 
rules'^  to  confine  himself  to  "  The  Presbyterian  Church  vnder 
the  General  Assembly  in  the  United  States.^^  But  he  soon  found 
nothing  in  our  standards  against  liberty ;  and  he  flew  to  Euro- 
pean Presbyterians.  I  followed  him,  admitting  that  our  ancestry 
had  erred  as  to  the  rights  of  conscience,  (he  falsely  says,  I  owned 
that  persecution  was  a  part  of  Presbyterianism  in  all  time  till 
now.)  I  owned,  that  formerly  Presbyterians  h^d  persecuted,  but 
his  Church  exceedingly  more.  Presbyterians  had,  from  the  first, 
been  the  leading  advocates  for  liberty,  and  distinguished  for  good 
morals.  In  proof,  I  brought  the  testimony  of  other  denominations, 
and  of  statesmen  of  no  denomination,  and  even  of  Roman  Catho" 
lies.  For  this  reason  I  called  in  Swift,  and  Dryden,  a  "  Catholic,'* 
as  well  as  Hooker,  Bancroft,  and  Sir  .Tames  Macintosh.  And  now, 
he  says,  they  were  but  "  opinions.''^  And  pray,  is  his  doctrine 
any  more?  I  brought  our  standards.  He  says,  they  were  altered 
to  suit  the  country.  Very  well.  I  ask  him  to  do  the  same  with 
his  system.  But  he  cannot,  will  not;  it  is  infallible.  And  so  it 
stands.  The  papal  system  cannot  become  liberal,  and  they  will 
not  renounce  it;  and  here  we  join  issue — here  we  fix  our  final  op- 
position to  it,  as  anti-American,  as  well  as  anti-Christian. 

The  abuse  which  the  gentleman  pours  upon  Dr.  Miller,  speaks 
well  for  the  doctor's  labours,  for  truth  and  liberty.  Mr.  Hug-hes 
seems  to  covet  the  honour  of  being  in  such  good  company.  But 
it  is  not  for  porcupines  to  fight  with  lions ;  nor  rats  to  demolish 
the  stately  pillars  of  the  Church. 

I  confess,  it  is  more  appropriate  game  to  go  after  Dr.  Ely. 
And  yet,  how  has  our  Jesuit  friend  garbled  even  Dr.  Ely !  He 
has  left  out,  as  usual,  the  explanatory  parts,  and  uprooting  from 
their  connexions  other  parts,  has  falsified  his  sense,  and  then 
charged  the  perversion  on  the  Presbyterian  Church.  For  example, 
Dr.  Ely  says,  "  We  do  not  say  that  true,  or  even  pretended  Chris- 
tianity, shall  be  made  a  constitutional  test  of  admission  to  office, 
but  we  do  affirm,  that  Christians  may,  in  their  elections,  law- 
fully prefer  the  avowed  friends  of  the  Christian  religion,  to 
T\irks,  Jews,  and  Infidels.''''  But  Robert  Bellarmine  says,  (1) 
*'  But  when,  in  reference  to  heretics,  thieves,  and  other  wicked 
men,  there  arises  this  question  in  particular,  '  shall  they  be  exter- 
minated?^ it  is  to  be  considered,  according  to  the  meaning  of  our 
Lord,  whether  that  can  be  done  without  injury  to  the  good;  and 
if  that  be  possible,  they  are,  without  doubt,  to  be  extirpated, 

(I)  Book  III.  Chap.  23,  of  Laics — his  works  being  approved  and  pub- 
lished by  authority  of  the  Pope,  except  that  he  condemned  him  for  710^  being- 
strong-  enough  on  the  temjporal  power  of  the  Pope. 

43 


338 

(exterpandi  sunt  procultlubio.)  Dr.  Ely  says,  (speaking  of  a 
Christian  President,  "  Let  him  be  a  man  of  a  good  moral  cha- 
racter, and  let  him  profess  to  believe  in,  and  advocate  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  and  we  can  all  support  him.  At  one  time  he  will 
be  a  Baptist;  at  another  an  Ejnscopalian ;  at  another  a  Metho- 
dist; at  another  a  Presbyterian  of  the  American,  Scotch,  Irish, 
Dutch,  or  German  stamp,  and  always  a  friend  to  our  comnioa 
Christianity."  I  suppose,  his  being  a  Christian,  would  not  be 
a  radical  objection  in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Hughes!  The  sermon 
was  surely  a  silly  production.  But  while  Mr.  Hughes  cries 
**  wolf,"  "  wolf,"  over  it,  the  present  Pope  says,  (and  I  beg  him 
to  notice  it  as  it  has  been  before  presented,  and  not  noticed,) 
**  Nor  can  we  augur  more  consoling  consequences  to  reli- 
gion AND  THE  government,  FROM  THE  ZEAL  OF  SOME  TO  SEPARATE 

THE  Church  from  the  state,  and  to  burst  the  bond  which. 

UNITES  THE  PRIESTHOOD  TO  THE  EMPIRE.  FoR,  IT  IS  CLEAR,  THAT 
this  union  IS  DREADED  BY  THE  PROFANE  LOVERS  OF  LIBERTY,  ONLY 
BECAUSE  IT  HAS  NEVER  FAILED  TO  CONFER  PROSPERITY  ON  BOTH." 

Here  the  head  of  the  universal  and  only  true  Church  announces, 
in  a  public  letter,  addressed  to  "  Catholics,"  over  the  whole  world, 
that  it  is  a  profane  love  of  liberty  to  oppose  the  union  of  Church 
and  state,  and  that  said  union  is  necessary  to  the  prosperity  of 
religion  and  government!  Will  Mr.  Hughes  meet  this?  Will 
he  explain  it,  by  the  side  of  his  inference  from  Dr.  Ely's  proposal 
to  form  "  a  Christian  party  in  politics." 

Dr.  Wilie  is  next  introduced.  He  is  first  assailed  for  his 
opinions ;  then  devolved  on  us ;  then  praised  for  his  candour.  Dr. 
Wilie  is  an  able  and  a  good  man.  I  wish  that  "  a  drop  of  oil" 
from  *'  the  good  olive  trees,"  that  I  believe  feed  his  soul,  might 
fall  on  the  husky  conscience  of  his  wily  eulogist.  Dr.  Wilie  be- 
longs not  to  our  communion.  His  views,  as  uttered  in  the  sermon 
adduced,  on  the  question  now  before  us,  are  very  much  at  issue 
with  our  standards.  We  are  not  responsible  for  them.  We 
deeply  regret  them.  They  greatly  surprise  us.  Mr.  Hughes, 
however,  as  usual,  has  distorted  them.  But  Dr.  Wilie,  with 
whom,  I  presume,  on  all  other  leading  points  I  should  essentially 
agree,  "  is  of  age,^"*  and  will,  if  he  think  it  worth  while,  "  speak 
for  himself." 

And  then  for  "  The  Dutch  Reformed  Church.''''  I  refer  Mr. 
Hughes  to  my  gallant  "  colleague,"  whose  heavy  blows  yet  ring 
on  the  broken  bosses  of  the  three  priests,  who  united  against  him 
in  New  York ;  but  who  treated  him  anon  as  my  discreet  friend 
did  Mr.  M'Calla,  profiting  by  the  venerable  maxim : — 

"  He  that  fights,  and  runs  away, 
May  live  to  fight  another  day." 

Of  the  caricature  which  he  has  given  us  of  the  meeting  at  Mr. 
McCalla's  church,  I  will  only  say,  that  though  the  gentleman 


339 

seems  to  have  been  present ^  he  did  not  accept  the  invitation  pub- 
licly given,  to  any  priest.,  to  defend  his  cause ;  and  that  the  efforts 
made  to  disturb  that  meeting,  plainly  prove  what  "Catholics" 
would  do,  if  they  could. 

Mr.  Smith  is  now  despised.  When  he  was  a  Popish  priest, 
as  his  testimonials  fully  show,  he  was  much  esteemed.  Now  he 
is  blackened.  The  truth  is,  his  "two-penny"  sheets  are  making, 
week  by  week,  such  disclosures  of  what  he  saw  among  nuns  and 
priests,  that  I  do  not  wonder  Mr.  Hughes  "  despises  even  the  day 
of  small  things. ^^  The  gentleman  excuses  us  from  the  charge  of 
actually  putting  the  torch  to  the  Convent;  but  he  still  insists  that 
we  are  labouring  to  excite  "  a  disposition  and  efforts  to  persecute 
Catholics.*'  I  need  not,  I  will  not  stoop  to  repel  such  malignant 
but  powerless  thrusts.-  But  I  will  say  this  :  that  there  is  a  certain 
kind  of  houses,  which  the  Pope  used  to  license  at  Rome,  which 
the  "boys  and  mobs"- in  America,  taking  Judge  Lynch's  laws, 
sometimes  pull  down,  not  as  Protestants  against  popery,  but  as 
enemies  to  gross  immoralities,  which  we  cannot  name. 

When  he  comes  to  Mr.  Jefferson,  the  gentleman  says,  "  He 
(Mr.  Jefferson)  depended  for  his  knowledge  (of  the  Presbyte- 
rians) not  on  speculation,  but  on  facts.*''  But  did  not  De  Pradt, 
and  Robinson,  and  Hooker,  and  Bellarmine,  have  "facts"  also? 
yet  their's  were  only  "opinions;"  and  De  Pradt,  and  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Paris,  were  "  Infidels,"''  and  in  both  cases,  he  told  us  they 
had  no  weight;  you  see  his  consistency.  The  gentleman  ought 
to  have  a  better  m^emory,  or  not  so  bad  spirit.  But  we  proceed : 
Mr.  Jefferson  has  shared  the  fate  of  all  authors  that  pass  through 
Mr.  Hughes's  household  expurgatory  Index.  He  gives  the  part 
that  suits  his  case,  "/or  the  rest,"  as  he  says,  let  it  go  to  the 
winds.  Just  above  Mr.  Hughes's  second  quotation,  Mr.  Jefferson 
■says  of  Paul,  "  of  this  band  of  dupes  and  imposters,  Paul  was 
the  great  Coryphaeus,  and  first  corrupter  of  the  doctrines  of  Je- 
sus.*'' You  see  we  are  in  good  company:  and  you  can  judge  how 
impartial  he  is  towards  us  in  other  matters.  Mr.  Hughes  omits 
a  passage  about  the  Trinity,  and  begins  his  citation  in  the  midst 
of  a  paragraph,  of  which  the  following  is  an  integral  part:  "  The 
history  of  our  University  you  know  so  far.  An  opposition  in  the 
mean  time,  has  been  gotten  up.  The  serious  enemies  are  the  priests 
of  the  different  religious  sects,  to  whose  spells  on  the  human  mind, 
its  improvement  is  ominous.  Their  pulpits  are  now  resounding  with 
denunciations  against  the  appointment  of  Dr.  Cooper,  whom  they 
charge  as  a  m9notheist,  in  opposition  to  their  tritheism.  Hostile 
as  these  sects  are  in  every  point  to  one  another,  they  unite  in 
maintaining  their  mystical  theology,  against  those  who  believe 
there  is  one  God  onlj'."  Then  comes  in  the  quotation  by  Mr. 
Hughes,  the  reason  for  the  omission  is  obvious.  Mr.  Jefferson 
includes  ''priests  of  the  different  religious  sects;**  Mr.  Hughes 
wished  to  confine  it  to  Presbyterians.     Query  ?     Did  Mr.  JefTer* 


340 

son  mean  to  exclude  Popish  priests  from  any  claim  to  be  "  ChriS' 
tians'/'^  Again.  When  he  speaks  of  the  ^^Iwly  inquisition y^* 
does  he  intend  to  say  thai  Presbyterians  ever  had  one,  or  that  they 
originated  it,  and  kept  it  alive  in  Rome,  and  Spain,  &;c.?  The 
tyranny  of  Rome  is  incorporated  into  the  elements  of  language. 
If  we  would  express  cruelty,  we  go  to  the  abstraction  of  Rome's 
inquisition.  \i fraud,  we  borrow  Jesuit  from  Rome's  magazine  ; 
so  that  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  abusing  Presbyterians,  and  Mr.  Hughes 
in  quoting  him,  unconsciously  publishes  the  shame  and  oppreS' 
sion  of  the  papal  system  ! 

The  quotation  I'rom  Mr.  Jefferson,  (see  my  last  speech)  on  emi- 
gration from  Europe,  has  been  put  by,  but  not  answered.  We 
do  not  object  to  worthy  emigrants.  We  welcome  the  patriot,  the 
persecuted  Poles.  They  come  loving  liberty,  and  we  trust  long 
to  enjoy  it.  The  Poles,  by  the  way,  as  a  nation,  think  very  dif- 
ferently of  the  Jesuits,  from  Mr.  Hughes.  The  Jesuits  began 
their  ruin:  they  know  it,  and  judge  accordingly.  But  to  return. 
The  emigrants  we  dread,  are  such  as  "  dig  our  canals,"  and  "  rail- 
roads," and  make  mobs  by  way  of  chorus,  and  keep  the  land  in 
commotion,  wherever  they  are :  such  as  are  now  figuring  in  Bal- 
timore, living  at  the  public  charge,  and  enjoying  trial  by  jury,  for 
riot  and  bloodshed  on  the  Baltimore  rail-road.  The  poor,  the 
well-principled,  intelligent,  industrious  poor,  we  welcome  and 
confide  in. 

Let  such  freemen  multiply  in  our  midst.  But  let  them  not  be 
priest-ridden,  degraded  men,  who  think  it  a  crime  to  read  the 
Bible :  a  merit  to  hate  a  Protestant :  and  that  liberty  is  freedom 
from  law  and  order. 

Washington  said  to  the  American  people,  in  his  Farewell  Ad- 
dress, *'  Jlgainst  the  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  influence,  (/  con- 
jure you  to  believe  vne,  my  fellow-citizens,)  the  jealousy  of  a  free 
people,  ought  to  be  constantly  awake,  si}ice  history  and  experi- 
ence prove  that  foreign  influence  is  one  of  the  most  baneful  foes 
of  a  republican  government.''^  May  we  profit  by  his  oracular 
and  paternal  warning ! 

There  is  a  very  interesting  and  important  document  connected 
with  our  colonial  history,  which  speaks  volumes  on  this  subject, 
especially  in  reference  to  papal  emigrants  and  influence.  I  quote 
from  the  Address  of  the  Continental  Congress  to  the  People  of 
Great  Britain,  Oct.  21,  1774.  (1) 

"  And  by  another  act,  the  dominion  of  Canada  is  to  be  so  ex- 
tended, modelled,  and  governed,  as  that  by  being  ^disunited  from 
us,  detached  from  our  interests,  by  civil,  as  well  as  religious  pre- 


(1)  See  Journal  of  Cont.  Cong.,in^  vols.  1774  to  1788  vol.  i.  p.  30.  See 
Life  and  Writings  of  John  Jay,  2  vols,  octavo,  New  York — J.  &  J.  Harper — 
1833.  Vol.  i.  p.  473.  See  also  p.  382-3,  Oct.  19—"  Dated  by  paragraphs.'* 
See  p.  382. 


341 

judiees,  by  their  numbers  daily  swelling  with  Catholic  emigrants 
from  Europe,  and  by  their  devotion  to  an  administration  so  friend- 
ly to  their  religion,  that  they  might  become  formidable  to  us,  and, 
on  occasion,  be  fit  instruments,  in  the  hands  of  power,  to  reduce 
these  ancient,  free,  Protestant  colonies,  to  the  same  state  of 
slavery  with  themselves.         ****** 

"  Nor  can  we  suppress  our  astonishment,  that  a  British  Parlia- 
ment should  ever  consent  to  establish  in  that  country  a  religion 

THAT  HAS  DELUGED  YOUR  ISLAND  IN  BLOOD,  and  dispersed  IMPIETY, 
BIGOTRY,    PERSECUTION,    MURDER,  AND    REBELLION,    tkrOUgk    eVCry 

part  of  the  world. ''^ 

We  see  then,  what  our  fathers  felt  and  feared,  long  before  Pres- 
byterians began  to  excite  the  nation  (as  Mr.  Hughes  has  said)  to 
persecute  Catholics.  Who  were  they  that  uttered  these  strong 
opinions  ?  Not  a  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church! 
Not  a  convention  of  Protestant  preachers !  But  a  Congress  of  the 
Colonies,  on  the  eve  of  the  American  Revolution.  Let  us  see 
where  the  gentleman  will  place  these  patriots  !  Let  us  hear  to 
^^wliat  category"*^  this  document  belongs!  Surely,  if  Presbyte- 
rians are  mistaken  in  this  matter,  they  are  not  alone.  Their  fears 
are  strangely  sustained  by  our  patriot  fathers. 

In  reply  to  the  challenge  for  proof  of  immense  sums  being 
expended  in  this  country  for  propagating  popery  by  foreign 
despots,  I  need  only  refer  you  to  my  extended  disclosures  already 
made  on  that  topic  in  the  history  of  the  Leopold  Foundation^ 
and  the  acknowledgments  of  Catholic  documents,  both  in  America 
and  Germany,  as  already  exhibited.  Our  ^^ foreign  7nissions,** 
he  complains,  drain  the  country  of  money;  also,  *'  the  American 
Bible  Society:''^  and  this  he  professes,  as  a  political  economist, 
and  boasts  that  Catholics  send  money  into  the  country.  But 
political  economists  tell  us  that  such  monies,  say  on  Bibles,  made 
at  home,  and  circulated  chiefly  at  home,  directly  quicken  trade ; 
and  even  foreign  expenditures  do  the  same.  But  we  would  not 
complain  of  "  Catholic  despots"  sending  us  good  money,  if  it 
were  not  that  they  send  with  it  bad  men,  and  for  bad  uses.  But, 
surely,  the  gentleman  forgets,  when  he  ventures  on  the  ground  of 
^^ political  economy.''^  It  is  estimated  that  in  the  states  of  Europe 
there  are  a  million  of  different  sorts  of  ecclesiastics ;  who  are 
usually  not  taxable,  though,  as  a  body,  they  command  vast 
wealth  (as  in  South  America),  and  who  are,  as  to  public  service 
in  the  state,  idle,  and,  li fathers,  not  husbands;  and  "most  of 
this  million  subsist  on  the  plunder  of  the  people."  Again;  the 
number  of  monasteries  and  nunneries  in  popish  countries  is 
incredible.  They  are  seats  of  idleness,  if  not  sinks  of  corruption. 
It  was  at  one  time  boasted  that  there  were  forty-four  thousand  in 
the  empire  of  the  Pope.  Again;  nearly  one-third  part  of  the 
year  is  wasted,  in  papal  countries,  in  feasts,  and  fasts,  and  wor- 
shipping saints,  &c.  &c. ;  all  which  is  sunk  to  the  state,  in  money ^ 


342 

while  it  also  corrupts  the  morals  of  the  people.  The  treasure  sunk 
in  kind,  in  adorning  images,  chapels,  cathedrals,  and  in  sacred 
vessels,  &lc.  is  immense.  This  is  lost  to  the  state.  The  result 
is,  that  Home,  (for  example)  the  centre  of  the  finest  country  on 
earth,  once  the  greatest  city,  is  surrounded  by  boundless  desola- 
tions. Italy,  and  Spain,  and  Portugal!  Why  are  they  now, 
degraded,  enslaved,  and  a  century  behind  their  sister  nations? 
It  is  popery — popery,  alone,  makes  them  decay;  and,  until  it  is 
destroyed,  they  can  never  rise.  Popery  closes  on  them  the 
Bible.  Popery  is  the  malaria  of  the  nations.  Popery  makes 
the  very  land  to  decay,  while  it  enslaves  and  destroys  the  soul, 
I  challenge  a  reply  to  these  astounding  facts.  No.  Never  men- 
tion political  economy  again,  while  you  love  popery !  And  now 
let  the  gentleman  visit  Scotland,  England,  Holland — Protestant 
states.  Does  he  see  such  desolations?  Does  he  see  such  in 
North  America?  They  abound  in  papal  South  America.  "Why? 
Let  the  gentleman  inform  us. 

His  attack  on  "  the  American  Sunday  School  Union"  is  emi- 
nently fitted  to  disclose  the  aversion  of  popery  to  universal  and 
Bible  education;  and  is  a  lasting  disgrace  to  its  author.  It  is 
not  a  Presbyterian  but  a  Protestant  association.  Episcopalians, 
Baptists,  &c.  share  with  Presbyterians  equally  in  its  control ;  and 
no  book  is  edited  by  it  which  has  not  been  revised  by  a  committee 
composed  of  all  these,  as  well  as  of  Presbyterians.  If,  as  he  says, 
Presbyterians  give  most  to  it,  and  labour  most  for  it,  why  I  hardly 
know  how  to  apologise  for  so  atrocious  a  crime.  But,  while  a 
foreign  priest  denounces  this  noble  charity,  what  do  impartial 
Americans  say?  At  a  public  meeting  held  in  our  capital,  during 
the  session  of  Congress,  in  1830,  the  Hon.  Senator  Grundy  pre- 
sided. William  Wirt  addressed  to  the  meeting  a  letter,  being 
sick  in  his  chamber.  William  Wirt — a  name  dear  to  letters, 
liberty,  and  religion — said  :  "  /  regret  that  it  is  not  in  my  power 
to  be  with  you  this  evening,  that  J  might  have  united  my  hum- 
ble efforts  with  those  of  my  fellow-citizens  who  will  be  present 
in  advancing  this  great,  and,  as  I  believe,  heaven-directed  cause." 
**  It  has  been  the  ignorance  of  the  people  which  has  so  long 
enabled  tyrants  to  hold  the  world  in  chains."  "  Viewed  in  a 
temporal  and  political  light,  merely,  it  deserves  the  strongest 
support  of  all  who  wish  the  continuance  of  our  free  and  happy 
institutions  at  home."  Does  he  who  opposes  such  influences, 
sincerely  love  them,  or  really  desire  their  "  continuance?" 

The  Hon.  Theodore  Frelinghuyson,  the  pure  politician,  the 
eloquent  statesman,  himself  a  Sunday  School  teacher,  ably 
advocated  this  holy  cause,  saying,  "  It  is  the  most  benignant 
enterprise  of  modern  benevolence.^^  "  He  is  unfaithful  to  his 
country  who  would  seek  to  impair  its  influence.'*^  The  Pre- 
sident of  the  United  States  sent  an  apology  for  his  absence, 
(having  promised  to  be  present)  enclosing  a  donation.     And,  to 


343 

name  no  more,  Daniel  Webster  addressed  the  meeting,  saying: 
"  The  usefulness  of  Sunday  Schools  is  universally  acknow- 
ledged. Most  great  conceptioris  are  simple.  The  present  age 
has  struck  out  two  or  three  ideas,  on  the  important  subjects  of 
education,  and  the  diffusion  of  religious  knowledge,  partaking 
in  a  very  high  degree  of  this  character.  They  were  simple; 
but  their  application  was  extensive,  direct,  and  efficacious.  Of 
these,  the  leading  one,  perhaps,  was  the  distribution  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  without  note  or  comment,  an  idea  not  only  full  of 
piety  and  duty,  and  of  candour  also,  but  strictly  just  and  philo- 
sophical also The  object  of  Sunday  Schools,  and  of  the 

resolution  now  before  the  meeting,  was,  as  he  understood  it,  of 
similar  large  and  liberal  character.     It  was  to  diffuse  the  ele- 
ments of  knowledge,  and  to  teach  the  great  truths  of  revelation. 
It  was  to  improve,  to  the  highest  of  all  purposes,  the  leisure 
of  the  Sabbath;  to  render  its  rest  sacred,  by  thoughts  turned 
towards  the  Deity,  and  aspiring  to  a  knowledge  of  his  word  and 
will.     There  were  other  plans  of  benevolence  about  which  m,en 
might  differ.     But  it  seemed  to  him  there  could  be  no  danger  of 
error  here.     If  we  were  sure  of  anything,  we  were  sure  of  this, 
that  the  knoivledge  of  their  Creator,  their  duty,  and  their  destiny, 
is  good  for  men;   and  that  whatever,  therefore,  draws  the  atten- 
tion of  the  young  to  the  consideration  of  these  objects,  and 
enables  them  to  feel  their  importance,  must  be  advantageous  to 
human  happiness,  in  the  highest  degree,  and  in  all  worlds.^* 
Such  is  the  noble  testimony  of  this  great  man,  this  disinterested 
patriot — called  by  emphasis  the  champion  of  the  American  Con- 
stitution !     He  was  not,  is  not,  a  Presbyterian.     Oh !  how  small, 
and  how  ashamed,  must  a  priest  of  Borne  feel  before  the  sublime 
conceptions,  the  manly  rebuke,  the  just  defence  of  an  American 
layman  pleading  for  an  open  Bible  and  universal  education,  against 
the  chosen  representative  of  the  "  only  true  Church," — "  the  exclu- 
sive depository  of  God's  word  and  ministry!!"     I  have  looked 
at  the  gentleman's  reference  in  vain,  for  the  declaration  charged 
by  him  on  the  institution — that  they  desire  to  become  "  the  dic- 
tators of  the  consciences  of  thousands  of  immortal  beings.** 
I  believe  it  utterly  false ;  or,  if  found  in  it,  whenever  identified, 
it  will  be  seen  to  mean  wholly  another  thing  from  what  the  gen- 
tleman says.     I  call  for  the  reference.     And  as  to  the  passage 
about  "  the  political  power  of  the  country,"  it  is  a  private  letter 
from  Connecticut,   and  only  asserts,  that  in  ten  years,  minds 
formed,  not  by  Presbyterians,  but  by  the  Bible,  and  in  Sunday 
Schools,  would  predominate  in  the  country. 

Will  not  our  "  Catholic"  laymen,  such  as  Mathew  Carey, 
blush  for  their  priest,  who  so  recklessly  assails  such  institutions  ? 
By  way  of  a  very  striking  contrast,  I  remind  the  audience  of  the 
"  Inquisition,"  and  the  *'  Jesuits."     Is  it  not  passing  strange  that 


344 

this  gentleman  can  be  the  apologist  of  the  former,  and  the  advo- 
cate of  the  latter,  and  yet  assail  "  Sunday  Schools  ?^^ 

But  it  is  time  for  me  to  notice  his  argument,  drawn  from  the 
Larger  Catechism,  on  the  duties  required  in  the  second  command- 
ment, which,  among  other  things,  is  said  to  require  "  the  disap- 
proving, detesting,  opposing,  all  false  worship  ;  and,  according 
to  each  one^s  place  and  calli?ig,  removing  it,  and  all  tnonivments 
of  idolatry.'''  If  1  understand  the  reasoning,  he  means  to  charge 
ns  with  holding,  thatybrce  of  some  kind  is  a  duty  ;  or  that  some 
method  of  "  removing  the  monuments  of  idolatry,''^  at  war  with 
the  rights  of  others,  is  expressed.  For,  I  suppose,  he  will  not 
say,  that  if  we  oppose  false  ivorship,  and  remove  these  monu- 
ments of  idolatry,  in  a  constitutional  way,  and  without  disturbing 
the  rights  of  others,  this  would  be  wrong ;  or  against  liberty, 
civil  or  religious  ?  I  am  aware,  however,  that  he  has  a  warm  side 
towards  these  things,  which,  indeed,  is  not  to  be  wondered  at. 
But  he  will  not  say  that  it  is  persecution,  to  oppose  idolatry  by 
discussion,  moral  influence,  and  prayer.  The  question  then  is, 
as  to  the  manner  of  doing  it.  Does  our  doctrine  utter,  or  imply 
tyranny  1  or  force  ?  or  a  hindrance  to  the  free  exercise  of  religious 
worship  ?  If  so,  we  should  like  to  know  it.  So  far  is  this  from 
being  the  fact,  that  he  has  himself  owned,  "  that  the  Confession 
of  Faith  was  amended,  (at  the  adoption  of  the  American  Consti- 
tution,) to  suit  the  Constitution,  and  the  new  order  of  things.^* 
What  he  thus  admits  (as  "  an  amendment,''^)  to  be  true,  may  be 
easily  shown,  by  reference  to  all  those  parts  of  our  standards, 
which  relate  to  the  freedom  of  worship,  and  the  use  of  force  by 
the  civil  magistrate  in  matters  of  conscience.  For  example  :  (1) 
*'  It  is  the  duty  of  civil  magistrates  to  protect  the  person,  and 
good  name,  of  all  these  people;  so  that  no  person  be  suffered, 
either  upon  jjretence  of  religion,  or  infidelity,  to  offer  any  indig-^ 
nity,  violence,  abuse,  or  injury,  to  any  other  person  whatsoever ; 
and  to  take  order  that  all  religious  and  ecclesiasticcd  assemblies 
he  held  without  molestation  or  disturbance.^'  "  It  is  the  duty  of 
civil  magistrates,  as  '  nursing  fathers,'  to  protect  the  Church  of 
our  common  Lord  without  giving  the  preference  to  any  denomi- 
nation of  Christians,  above  the  rest."  Heie  is  surely  a  disclaimer 
of  all  force.  "  But  the  nursing  fathers  !" — Why,  yes.  Isaiah 
said  so  before  us.  But  he  ought  to  have  known,  that  he  would 
give  offence  to  Mr.  Hughes,  native  of  Ireland,  emigrant  to  the 
United  States,  priest  of  Rome,  pastor  of  St.  John's  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  by  such  a  passage !  Yet  it  is  not  said  our  par- 
ticular church,  but  all  Christian  denominations,  that  the  civil  ma- 
gistrate should  protect.  Religion  is  one  of  our  common  rights — 
and  a  civil  right  to  be  protected  in  it.  But  Mr.  Hughes  replies, 
this  "  excludes  us  idolaters."     No.     We  say  "  all  religious  and 

(1 )  Chap.  XXIII.  Confession  of  Faith. 


345 

ecclesiastical  assemblies"  are  to  be  ^^protected,^^  though  it  be  an  anti- 
Christian  system.  But  shall  we,  for  this  reason,  be  silent  about 
their  errors  ?  May  we  not  use  the  liberty  of  speech  ?  It  is  a  part 
of  the  daily  worship  of  St.  John's,  and  of  every  "  Catholic"  altar 
upon  earth,  whenever  full  service  is  performed,  to  denounce  us 
heretics ;  and  every  time  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.  is  said,  we  are  ex- 
cluded from  salvation.  But  they  have  a  right  to  do  it ;  and  it  does 
not  hurt  us — nor  do  we  try  to  hinder  them.  But  shall  we  not  use 
our  liberty  in  turn,  and  freely  inquire  into  these  things  t  This  is  all 
we  ask,  and  all  we  do.  This  is  what  the  gentleman  dreads — this 
is  what  his  system  cannot  endure. 

But  he  insists  we  are  not  sincere.  That  we  have  a  secret  sense, 
and  a  private  purpose,  which  Dr.  Ely  has  let  out  for  lack  of 
Jesuit  cunning.  U  our  profession  of  faith  be  discredited,  the  ap- 
peal, of  course,  must  be  to  facts.  The  only  one  he  has  adduced, 
is,  that  at  Boston,  the  riotous  rabble  taking  the  Convent  for  a 
********,  wickedly  burned  it  down.  But  these  were  not  Pres- 
byterians. No.  But  they  well  deserved  to  be  !  We  appeal  then 
to  our  standards^  and,  passing  from  them,  we  appeal  to  our  his- 
tory, in  refutation  of  these  uncandid  and  shallow  attacks. 

One  thing  must  have  struck  every  hearer.  I  mean  the  dearth 
of  matter  ;  when  "  election,"  and  "  removing  all  the  monuments 
of  idolatry,"  constitute  the  burden  of  his  argument,  (if  such  it  may 
be  called,)  on  which  he  has  so  long  rung  the  changes  of  hopeless 
declamation,  and  ingenious  sophistry. 

On  the  other  hand,  have  not  my  hours  been  crowded  with  testi- 
monies against  the  oppressive  system  which  he  attempts  to 
defend  ? 

Before  I  close,  let  me  notice  some  of  the  gentleman's  evasions, 
devices,  &c. 

He  says  the  Jesuits  were  opposed  by  Voltaire,  and  other  infi- 
dels ;  and  were  therefore  good ;  yet  he  cites  Mr.  Jefferson  to  tes- 
tify to  Presbyterian  character. 

Under  the  second  commandment,  our  standards  refer  to  Deu- 
teronomy vii.  7.,  to  prove  that  idolatry  was  to  be  abhorred,  and, 
by  all  proper  means,  prevented.  He  argues,  from  the  reference, 
that  we  hold  to  a  theocracy,  and  to  force  as  a  duty.  Is  he  sin- 
cere__?  Then  let  us  turn  to  his  own  Catechism,  (1)  where  it  says, 
*'  heretics  are  to  be  punished.''''  (The  translator  has  interpolated 
the  word  "  spiritual,"'  and  struck  out  all  the  references.)  But  on 
turning  to  the  honest  Latin,  I  find,  it  quotes  Deuteronomy  xvii.  12. 
*'  And  the  man  that  will  do  presumptuously,  and  will  not  hearken 
unto  the  priest  that  standeth  to  minister  there  before  the  Lord 
thy  God,  or  unto  the  judge,  even  that  man  shall  die — and  thou 
shall  put  away  evil  from  Israel.''     If  the  gentleman  is  honest, 

(1)  Counc.  of  Trent,  page  96,  English  edition. 
44 


346 

then,  he  is  forced  to  own,  by  his  own  reasoning  on  our  Confes- 
sion, that  his  is  a.  persecuting  theocracy.    Btit,  still  more.    It  also 
refers,  for  further  proof,  to  Romans  xiii.  4.    "  He  heareth  not  the 
sword  in  vain,^^  &c. ;  and,  in  the  margin,  it  says,  Unde  leges  in 
hsereticos  latse.    Hence  laws  are  passed  against  heretics.     This, 
also,  the  pious  translator  left  out.     Now,  this  confirms  and  inter- 
prets the  persecuting  clause.     Now,  in  our  Confession  there  are 
abounding  passages,  which  disclaim  all  purpose,  or  right,  to  en- 
force religious  opinions  ;  or  to  persecute  heretics,  or  to  require  the 
civil  power  to  do  it;  and  all  pretensions  to  be  exclusively  the  true 
Church.     Whereas,  in  the  Roman  Catholic  standards,  directly  the 
reverse  is  true.     \i  prof  esses  to  be  the  only  true  Church;  ii  pro- 
fesses that  the  civil  power  is  bound  to  punish  all  persons  "  de- 
noted by  the  Church''''  as  heretics ;  ii  professes  to  be  a  theocracy, 
a  mixed  power,  commanding  both  swords.     And  I  defy  the  gen- 
tleman, I  hereby  challenge  him,  to  bring  me  one  passage,  in  all 
his  standards,  condemning  the  union  of  church  and  state  ;  or  per- 
7nitting  the  toleration  of  a  false  religion ;  or  the  protection  of  any 
religion ;   or  announcing  that  all  religions  ought  to  be  placed  by 
the  state  on  an  equal  footing !     I  call  on  him  to  do  it.     Here, 
then,  he  adduces  a  passage  of  our  standards,  and  construes  it,  (in 
a  way  which  contradicts  all  the  other  parts  of  it,  as  he  has  al- 
lowed,) to  mean  persecution.     Whereas  I  produce  a  passage  sus- 
tained by  his  own  use  of  our  standards,  and  by  many  kindred 
parts  of  his,  avowing  the  doctrine  and  the  duty  of  persecution. 

And  that  there  may  be  no  doubt  of  this,  let  me  close  with  an 
extract  from  his  own  Cardinal  Bellarmine.  (1)  "The  spiritual 
power  does  not  mingle  in  temporal  affairs,  but  permits  them  to 
proceed  in  their  ordinary  course,  provided  they  present  no  obsta- 
cle to  the  spiritual  purpose,  or  are  not  necessary  to  forward  them. 
But  if  any  such  thing  should  happen,  the  spiritual  power  may  and 
ought  to  repress  the  temporal,  by  every  means  and  expedient 
which  she  may  deem  requisite ; — may  change  kingdoms,  taking 
them  from  one  and  giving  them  to  another,  as  the  sovereign,  spi- 
ritual prince  may  deem  necessary  to  the  safety  of  souls.  It  is 
not  permitted  to  Christians  to  tolerate  an  infidel,  or  heretical  king, 
if  Ae  endeavours  to  draw  his  subjects  into  heresy;  but  it  belongs 
to  the  sovereign  pontiff,  who  has  the  care  of  religion,  to  judge, 
whether  the  king  does  or  not ;  to  the  sovereign  pontiff  it  conse- 
quently remains,  to  decide,  ivhether  the  king  shall  be  deposed  or 
not." — Illustration.  King  John,  of  England  ;  the  Pope's  inter- 
dict, and  deposition  of  the  king ;  his  doing  homage  to  the  Pope 
for  his  crown  ;  and  agreeing  to  pay  an  annual  tribute  to  the  Pope, 
called,  from  this,  "  Peter's  Pence  !"  In  different  periods  of  papal 
despotism,  not  less  than  sixty  emperors,  kings,  and  princes,  have 

(1)  Lib.  5.  chap.  6.    De  Rom.  Pon. 


347 

been  excommunicated,  deposed,  &c.  by  the  Popes  of  Rome ! 
Yet,  we  are  told,  Rome  regards  the  rights  of  man ! 

P.S.  When  a  Jesuit  denies  a  Jesuit,  what  shall  we  say  ?  There 
is  proof  positive,  in  the  history  of  Talleyrand,  that  he  taught  ma- 
thematics in  the  state  of  New  York.  There  is  proof  in  his 
character,  that  he  is  a  Jesuit. 


348 


"/^  the  Presbyterian  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doct7nnes,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  J?" 


AFFIRMATIVE  III— MR.  HUGHES. 

Mr.  President  : — 

I  HAVE  had  but  little  intercourse  with  the  gentleman,  except  as 
a  controversial  opponent,  and  yet,  notwithstanding  the  violation 
of  all  the  rules  that  usually  govern  the  intercourse  of  gentlemen, 
which  you  liave  witnessed  in  his  last  speech,  I  have  reason  to 
know  that  he  can  he  courteous,  when  he  is  in  good  humour. 
"  Papist,"  "  Jesuit,"  "  native  of  Ireland,"  "  foreigner,"  and  every 
epithet  that  can  awaken  a  dormant  prejudice,  or  excite  a  feeling 
of  hatred,  is  employed  to  designate  the  individual  whom  he  him- 
self SELECTED,  as  his  equal  in  every  moral  quality.  Still,  sir,  I 
can  trace  his  violation  of  propriety  to  his  bad  humour ;  and  I  can 
trace  his  bad  humour,  to  his  bankruptancy  in  argument.  His 
conduct  reminds  me  of  those  disputants,  who  would  overthrow  the 
influence  of  the  Saviour's  preaching,  not  by  argument  or  reason- 
ing, but  by  saying  that  he  "  intended  to  destroy  the  temple,"  that 
he  was  a  "  Samaritan,  and  had  a  devil." 

He  represents  me  as  attacking  the  reputation  of  individuals, — 
slandering  the  character  of  institutions — "hating"  this  one, 
"fearing"  that  other  —  and  above  all,  publishing  "ferocious 
scandals"  of  the  Presbyterians.  But  all  will  not  do.  He  has 
assigned  my  position  in  this  Discussion,  and  the  history  of  his  creed 
and  its  professors  furnish  me  with  arguments  to  maintain  it. 
Catholics  are  not  in  the  habit  of  meddling  with  the  religious  con- 
cerns of  other  denominations ;  but  when  circumstances  of  the 
gentleman's  own  choice  and  creation,  have  made  it  my  duty  to 
examine  the  bearings  of  Presbyterianism  on  "  civil  and  religious 
liberty,"  then  the  fault,  if  there  is  any,  must  rest  on  his  own  head. 
The  examination  of  Presbyterianism  is  an  operation  to  which  he 
is  evidently  unaccustomed,  and  for  which  his  temper  is  constitu- 
tionally unfitted.  I  am  not  surprised,  therefore,  that  it  should 
betray  him  into  a  forgetfulness  of  what  is  due  to  himself  as  a 
"minister  of  the  gospel"  and  a  refined  gentleman.  That  he 
should  experience  pain,  is  natural  enough.  But  the  man  who  is 
so  ready  to  inflict  it  on  Catholics,  should  be  prepared  to  en- 
dure in  return.     Neither  should   he  mistake   the  source  of  his 


349 

suffering — by  making  the  instrument  responsible  for  what  belongs, 
rather,  to  the  depth  and  the  inveteracy  of  the  disease.  I  give 
chapter  and  verse  for  every  fact  stated  in  argument.  Does  he 
dispute  my  citation  of  authorities  ?  It  would  be  useless.  Does  he 
grapple  with  my  reasoning,  in  deducing  consequences  from  those 
facts  ?  No,  but  he  calls  me  a  "  Jesuit,"  a  "  papist" — and  for  those 
who  will  not  be  convinced  by  this  kind  of  argument,  there  is  no 
remedy.  Least,  however,  that  even  this  should  go  unrefuted,  I 
shall  cite  a  counter  argument  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Nightingale,  a 
Protestant  clergyman,  who  says  '<  The  reproachful  epithets  of 
^Papists,''  'Romanist,^  ^Popish,''  ^  Romanish,''  ^c.  are  no 
longer  applied  to  them  {Catholics)  by  any  gentleman  or 
SCHOLAR."  (1)  The  gentleman  says,  that  to  call  us  "  Catholics" 
*'  would  be  to  give  up  the  whole  question  of  debate  between  us  and 
Protestants."  I  am  sorry  that  Protestantism  has  to  depend /or  its 
existence  on  a  breach  of  politeness — and  the  hope  of  appropriating 
to  itself  a  title  which  had  been  ours  for  1500  years  previous  to 
its  existence. 

He  seems  to  think  that  the  other  Protestant  denominations  join 
the  Presbyterians  in  the  crusade  against  Catholics.  That  they 
believe  Catholics  to  be  in  error,  is  easily  admitted.  But  this  does 
not  constitute  evidence  in  the  case.  The  Presbyterians  alone,  so 
far  as  I  know,  are  the  only  denomination  who  have  seen  their 
*'  ministers  of  the  gospel "  resigning  their  congregations  to  be 
saved  by  "  God's  eternal  decree,"  in  order  to  devote  themselves 
to  the  preaching  of  religious  and  political  hatred  among  citizens 
in  a  country  where  the  rights  of  all  are  equal.  I  believe  that  the 
great  body  of  the  sober-minded  Presbyterians  themselves,  have 
beheld  with  'regret  and  mortification,  the  proceedings  by  which 
certain  Rev.  agitators  of  their  sect,  were  fixing  the  attention  of 
the  country,  as  to  what  might  be  their  ulterior  object.  The  stories 
about  "gunpowder  plots,"  and  "foreign  conspiracies,"  were  a 
little  too  absurd  for  the  belief  of  rational  and  reflecting  minds, 
such  as  are  found  in  all  denominations.  Their  very  authors,  I 
am  persuaded  in  my  heart,  do  not  believe  one  word  of  them. 

Passing  over  the  gentleman's  charges  against  the  Catholic  reli- 
gion, which  I  have  answered  under  the  former  question — passing 
over  for  the  present  his  irrelevant  matter  about  "Dr.  Beecher," 
"Dr.  Miller,"  "  Dr.  Ely,"— "  lions,"  "  porcupines,"  and  "  rats,'" 
— I  shall  proceed  to  the  question,  and  the  argument  at  once.  My 
first  argument  to  show,  that  Presbyterians  hold  doctrines  "  opposed 
to  civil  and  religious  liberty,"  was  founded  on  their  doctrine  of 
predestination;  which  Calvin  called  the  "horrible  decree."  I 
showed  that  any  doctrine  which  destroyed /ree-m7/,  and  transfer- 
red the  responsibility  of  moral  transgression  from  the  creature 
to  the  CREATOR,  whether  true  or  false  in  itself,  is  opposed  in  its 

(1)  Pourtr.  p.  14. 


350 

consequences,  not  only  to  morality,  but  to  the  foundation  of  all 
moral  laws.  But  does  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  warrant  such  a 
conclusion?  It  certainly  does.  It  teaches  that  God  "  fore-ordain- 
ed WHATSOEVER  COMES  TO  PASS."  (1)  Pass  iu  rcview,  then,  all  the 
crimes  that  have  been  committed  since  the  world  began,  including 
the  first  and  the  last;  and,  since  it  is  undeniable  that  they  "  have 
come  to  pass,"  it  follows,  according  to  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
that  God  had  "  fore-ordained  them."  And  since  God  had  "  fore- 
ordained" them,  it  follows  that  their  perpetrators  could  not  avoid 
committing  them.  And  since  they  could  not  avoid  committing 
them,  it  follows  that  they  had  no  reason  to  be  sorry  for  them. 
And  since  they  had  no  reason  to  be  sorry  for  them,  it  follows 
that  there  is  no  motive  for  exertion  to  avoid  them.  Since,  if 
God  has  "fore-ordained"  them,  they  will  happen  in  despite  of 
effort.  Here,  therefore,  is  a  doctrine  which  makes  all  human 
actions — virtuous  as  well  as  vicious— and  vicious  as  well  as  vir- 
tuous, the  result  of  God's  "fore-ordination,"  in  the  carrying  out  of 
which,  man  is  no  longer  a  free,  moral  agent,  but  the  mere  auto- 
maton of  the  eternal  decree.  According  to  this  it  was  "  fore- 
ordained" that  John  Huss  should  be  burned  at  Constance  ;  and 
yet  the  gentleman  charges  the  Council  for  it.  But  I  ask  him 
whether  it  was  not  "  fore-ordained"  that  it  should  be  so  ?  If  he 
says  it  was,  then  he  blames  the  Council  for  not  defeating  one  of 
God's  ''^decrees.''''  If  he  says  it  was  not,  then  he  abandons  his 
doctrine.  But  he  must  admit  that  it  was.  And  I  ask  any  one. 
whether  a  doctrine  which  tells  the  offender  against  the  rights  of 
his  fellow-men,  that  God  had  "  fore-ordained"  the  offence,  is  not 
a  dangerous  doctrine  ? 

In  answer  to  this,  he  says,  that  St.  Augustine,  the  Episcopalians, 
and  Baptists  hold,  and  that  the  Council  of  Trent  almost  held  this 
doctrine.  I  say  that,  with  the  exception  of  what  are  called  Calvin- 
istic  Baptists,  the  fact  is  not  so.  St.  Augustine,  in  the  passage 
quoted,  is  speaking  of  election  to  the  grace  and  knowledge  of 
Christianity,  as  the  original  clearly  shows.  The  Episcopalians, 
even  in  England,  are  known  to  have  had,  especially  since  the  time 
of  Archbishop  Laud,  "Calvinistic  articles,  and  Arminian  clergy." 
The  doctrine  was  in  the  book,  but  they  neither  professed  nor  be- 
lieved in  it,  as  their  Presbyterian  opponents  have  been  eloquent 
in  showing.  As  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  it  taught  no  such  im- 
pious tenet.  But  it  is  of  no  importance.  The  difficulty  remains 
the  same.  A  second  attempt  at  answering,  which  has  been  made, 
is  the  citation  of  the  good  opinion  which  Hooker,  and  Bancroft, 
and  Sir  James  Macintosh  entertained  of  Presbyterians.  This  is 
not  the  question.  But  the  question,  what  is  the  plea  which  this 
doctrine  gives  to  wicked  men  who  choose  to  act  upon  it  ?  A  man 
trained  in  this  belief,  for  instance,  has  committed  a  crime.     Before 

(1)  Page  321. 


351 

detection,  he  soothes  his  conscience  by  the  reflection  that  the 
"  eternal  decree  of  God,  fore-ordained"  him  to  commit  it.  But  he  is 
detected,  and  condemned  by  the  laws  of  his  country.  Before 
receiving  his  sentence,  he  pleads,  in  bar  of  judgment,  that  God 
had  "fore-ordained"  him,  by  an  "unchangeable  decree,"  to 
commit  the  act  for  which  man  is  about  to  punish  him.  The 
human  law  required  him  not  to  do  i: — the  decree  of  God  put 
it  out  of  his  power  to  abstain  from  doing  it;  the  consequence 
is,  that  he  is  to  be  punished  for  not  having  resisted  the  decree 
of  God!  Now  let  the  gentleman  show  where  there  is  an  error 
in  this  reasoning.  Let  him  reconcile  the  doctrine  of  "  the  fore- 
ordination  of  whatever  comes  to  pass,"  with  the  justice  of  those 
primitive  laws,  by  which  the  equal  rights  of  men,  social,  civil, 
and  religious  are  protected;  and  I  shal  admit  that  there  is  nothing 
in  this  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Charch,  "  opposed  to  civil  and 
religious  liberty."  Nay,  I  shall  never  bring  it  forward  again,  if  he 
does.  But  let  us  have  no  more  cerificates  of  good  behaviour 
from  "  Hooker  and  Bancroft."  For  tley  do  not  remove  the  diffi- 
culty.    Neither  does  Swift  or  Dryden  remove  the  difficulty. 

Another  argument  was  founded  on  th3  Presbyterian  doctrine,  by 
which  the  "magistrates"  are  constituted  "nursing  fathers  of  the 
Church  of  our  common  Lord."  This  wls  the  language  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  and  their  own  understanding  of  its  meaning 
is  the  best  interpretation^  Dr.  Wilie  jave  the  true  interpretation 
in  the  passage  I  read  from  his  sermon  in  my  last  speech.  Before^ 
Dr.  Wilie  was  ranked  among  the  ^^ purist  Presbyterians  that  ever 
lived ^^^  now,  the  gentleman  says,  ^^he{Dr.  W.)  does  not  belong 
to  our  communion.  But  how  comes  it  that  the  identical  texts  of 
Scripture,  by  which  Dr.  Wilie  suppors  those  arguments,  which 
the  gentleman  sees  with  so  much  "regret  and  surprise,"  are  for 
the  most  part  the  same  that  are  refeiied  to  or  expressed  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith  ?  Did  the  gentlenan  not  study  in  his  theo- 
logical course  the  meaning  which  the  JVestminster  divines  gave 
to  them  ?  Were  they  not  Jehovah's  warrant,  authorising  those 
laws  of  persecution  and  intolerance,  by  which  the  brief  ascendancy 
of  Presby terianism  in  England  was  so  distinguished  ?  What  are 
they  now?  Have  they,  too,  altered  their  meaning?  If  they  have, 
why  did  not  the  republican  edition  of  the  Confession  say  so  ? 
If  tliey  have  not,  why  does  he  disclaim  the  persecuting  princi- 
ples, which  they  were  originally  employed  to  support?  Thus, 
the  text,  to  prove  that  magistrates  are  to  be  "  nursing  fathers  to  the 
church,"  is  Isa.  xlix.  23.  ''And  kings  shall  be  thy  nursing 
fathers,  and  their  queens  thy  nursing  mothers.''  Is  this  the 
manner  in  which  the  Presbyterian  Chuich  has  repudiated  the 
state  ?  The  fact  is  that  the  state,  happily  for  the  country,  would 
not  marry  the  church ;  but  if  the  visions  of  Dr.  Ely  should  be 
realised,  it  will  be  found  that  the  "banns"  have  been  long  on  re- 
cord, in  the  Confession  of  Faith. 


352 

But  I  am  told,  that  this  article,  making  the  magistrates  of  the 
republic  "  nursing  fathers  to  the  Church  of  our  common  Lord," 
means  something  else.  It  means,  that  they  should  protect  all  de- 
nominations of  Christians.  Well,  this  duty  the  magistrates  can 
learn  from  the  Constitution.  But  let  us  see  what  is  meant  by  the 
"  Church  of  our  common  Lord."     Let  the  confession  speak. 

"  The  visible  Church,  which  is  also  Catholic  or  Universal 
under  the  Gospel,  {not  confined  to  one  nation  as  before  under 
the  law,)  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world  that  PRO- 
FESS THE  TRUE  REIIGION,  together  with  their  children^ 
and  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family 

of  God,  OUT  OF  WHICH  THERE  IS  NO  ORDINARY  POSSIBILITY  OF  SAL- 
VATION." (1)  Hence,  to  belong  to  the  "  Church  of  common 
Lord,"  to  which  the  magistrates  are  to  be  "  nursing  fathers," 
it  is  necessary  to  "profess the  true  religion  ;"  in  other  words,  to 
be  a  Presbyterian.     If  the  magistrate  is  bound  to  "  remove  all 

FALSE    WORSHIP,  ACCORDING    TO    HIS    PLACE    AND    CALLING,"  aS    the 

creed  elsewhere  teaches,  is  it  not  contradictory  and  absurd  to  say, 
under  this  head,  that  he  is  bound  to  ^^  protect  all?^^ 

There  is  one  circumstance  connected  with  the  gentleman's  vin- 
dication of  Presbyterian  d»ctrine,  from  the  charge  of  persecution, 
to  which  I  beg  to  direct  yDur  attention.  It  is  this — that  he  con- 
fines himself  within  that  portion  of  history  and  geography,  in 
which  it  was  impossible  t)  practice  the  doctrine  of  his  Church, 
and  unpopular  even  to  prcjfess  it.  But  the  honest  Presbyterians, 
who  have  adhered  to  thfeir  principles  in  adversity,  as  well  as 
prosperity,  determine  the  question  of  doctrine  by  a  thousand  attes- 
tations. I  have  given  already  abundant  evidence  to  establish  this, 
both  from  their  synodical  expositions  and  individual  testimonies,  in 
our  own  times  and  country.  We  shall  now  hear  their  doctrines 
expounded  by  themselves,  and  we  shall  discover  in  them  the  broad 
avowal  of  civil  hostility  to  all  freedom  of  conscience  opposed  to 
Presbyterianism.  Let  i;  be  understood,  that  I  do  not  hold  the 
gentleman  responsible  for  the  intolerance  of  individuals,  but  I 
quote  those  individuals  as  faithful  interpreters  of  the  standards  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church ;  and  we  have  his  own  candid  acknow- 
ledgment of  their  character,  when  he  tells  us,  that  "  they  are 
among  the  purest  Presbyterians  that  ever  lived."  I  quote  from 
the  work  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Houston,  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Church  in  Ireland,  published  in  1833,  entitled  "  The  Reviewer 
Reviewed." 

In  order  to  understand  the  merits  of  the  argument,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  premise  that,  the  reviewer,  a  Mr.  Paul,  had  under- 
taken the  difficult  task  of  vindicating  the  Presbyterian  stand- 
ards from  the  persecuting  doctrines,  which  all  the  world  knows 
them  to  contain ;   and  which  Mr.  Houston  being,  like  Dr.  Ely> 

(1)  Chap.  XXV.  Art.  2. 


353 

perhaps,  "  a  busy,  loquacious  man,"  had  imprudently  set  forth 
Here  the  question  was  identically  the  same  that  is  now  under 
discussion,  and  the  disputants  being  both  of  that  class,  which  the 
gentleman  designates  as  among  the  "  purest  Presbyterians  that 
ever  lived,^^  every  justice  will  be  done  to  the  standards. 

Mr.  Houston,  with  that  intellectual  refinement  of  intolerance, 
for  which  the  disciples  of  John  Calvin  have  always  been  charac- 
terized by  a  singular  aptitude,  maintains,  that  Presbyterian  ma- 
gistrates have  a  right,  and  it  is  their  duty,  to  punish  "  heretics 
and  IDOLATERS,"  with  the  civil  sword,  and  yet  that  this  is  not 
persecution!  It  is  true,  if  magistrates  of  any  other  denomination, 
were  to  wield  the  civil  sword  against  Presbyterians,  then  it  would 
be  persecution;  because,  says  he,  persecution  "  is  the  endurance 
of  trouble  for  the  true  Christian  religion,  in  doctrine  and  wor- 
ship." (1)  From  this  position,  he  deduces,  as  consequences,  that 
the  Protestants,  or  at  least  the  Presbyterians,  were  martyrs  when 
they  suffered  for  conscience  sake  ;  but  that  this  was  their  exclusive 
privilege,  as  professors  of  the  "  true  Christian  religion." 

As  the  Presbyterian  was  a  martyr,  whenever  he  suffered  by 
civil  law,  so,  whenever  he  made  the  professors  of  other  religions 
suffer  by  the  civil  sword,  he  was  not  a  persecutor,  but  a  zealous 
minister  of  God.  Hear  the  Presbyterian,  who  had  no  motive  to 
disguise  the  principles  of  their  creed.  "  Actuated  by  holy  zeal 
for  the  honour  of  God,  and  feeling  a  deep  interest  in  the  safety 
of  the  true  religion,  the  magistrate  may  restrain  its  daring 
enemies  ;  and  if  free  from  malignity  in  so  doing,  he  incurs  not 
the  guilt  of  a  persecutor,  according,  to  the  true  import  of  the 
wordJ'^  (2)  Let  the  Presbyterian  magistrate  only  say,  with  the 
associate  of  .John  Knox,  and  the  murderer  of  Cardinal  Beaton, 
that  he  is  not  moved  to  the  shedding  of  heretical  blood,  by  any 
"  private  malignity,"  and  he  is,  from  that  moment,  not  a  perse- 
cutor, but  a  zealous  minister  of  God.  Having  established  this 
Presbyterian  distinction,  the  author  goes  on  to  say — "  The  rnost 
enlightened  of  our  Reformers,  too,  whether  churchmen  or  states- 
men, and  the  m,ost  devoted  and  faithful  7nartyrs  to  the  Reforma- 
tion cause,  drunk  deeply  into  the  same  spirit,  being  avowed  abet- 
tors OF  magistratical  interference  in  favour  of  the  Reform- 
ed religion."  (3)  The  author  is  here  candid  and  honest,  and 
we  shall  have  abundant  occasion  to  show  that  the  ministers  of  the 
Reformed  religion,  made  use  of  the  magistrates'  power,  and  that 
without  it.  Protestantism  never  would  have  succeeded.  But  Mr. 
Houston  supports  his  assertions  by  the  authorities  of  the  West- 
minster divines,  and  their  cotemporaiies,  and  from  the  gentleman's 
Confession  of  Faith.  The  London  ministers  had  laid  it  down, 
that  "  The  magistrate  is,  in  a  civil  notion,  the  supreme  gover- 
nor in  all  causes  ecclesiastical,  the  keeper  of  both  tables,  the 

(1)  P.  20.  (2)  P.  19.  (3)  P.  21. 

45 


354 

NURSING  FATHER  OF  THE  CHURCH,  &e."  (1)  The  gentleman  pre- 
tended, that  the  magistrate's  being  denominated  a  "  nursing  father 
of  the  church,"  had  no  kind  of  connexion  with  civil  and  religious 
liberty  ;  although  he  must  be  truly  unacquainted  with  Presbyte- 
rian theology,  if  he  did  not  know  that  in  the  mind  of  those  who 
made  his  creed  in  Westminster,  it  meant  to  authorize  the  tyranny 
over  conscience,  which  Presbyterians  invariably  exercised,  when 
they  had  the  power.  Mr.  Houston  proceeds  to  show  the  mean- 
ing of  the  doctrines  on  this  subject,  embodied  in  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  other  Presbyterian  standards,  from  "  such 
venerated  men  as  Rutherford,  Guthrie,  and  Gillespie,"  and  from 
those  very  texts  of  Scripture,  by  which  the  Westminster  divines 
proved  the  right  of  the  civil  magistrates  to  regulate  the  consciences 
of  men,  and  which  texts  are  still  in  the  gentleman's  Confession. 
*'  Now,  says  he,  it  is  plain  that  all  those  false  teachers  of  old,  who 
aimed  to  withdraw  the  Israelites  from  the  worship  of  the  true 
God,  and  to  cause  them  to  go  after  other  gods,  were  regarded 
by  the  laiv  as  heretics^  Such  is  the  interpretation  given  to  the 
laivs  recorded  in  Deut.  XIIL  by  Ccdvin,  and  the  most  eminent 
expositors  of  former  times,  and  Scott,  of  more  m^odern  days.  It 
deserves  to  be  remarked,  that  our  Westminster  divines  refer 
TO  THESE  VERY  PASSAGES,  (2)  in  proof  of  the  positions  which  they 
advance,  that  it  is  the  'magistrate' s  duty  to  take  order  that  all 
heresies  should  be  suppressed.''^  (3) 

After  the  independence  of  this  country  was  secured,  it  was 
found  that  the  doctrine  of  using  the  civil  magistrate  as  a  tool  in 
the  hands  of  Presbytery,  for  "  suppressing  heresy,  would  not  take. 
These  odious  words  were  omitted,  accordingly,  in  the  Confession 
of  Faith  ;  but  the  original  Scripture  on  which  their  persecuting  im- 
port was  founded,  remains  to  the  present  day.  And  it  is  proba- 
ble that  this  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  that  "  busy,  loquacious 
man,"  Doctor  Ely,  desired  to  form  his  "  Christian  party  in  poli- 
tics," and  preferred,  ("  other  things  being  equal,")  to  have  a  "  good 
sound  Presbyterian  for  his  chief  magistrate.'''  Mr.  Houston,  in 
developing  the  standards,  says—"  It  is  so  notorious  that  at  the 
period  of  the  Reformation,  the  Reformers  and  reformed  churches 
held  the  principle  of  magistratical  care  about  religion,  and  that 
the  Protestant  powers,  such  as  the  Senate  of  Geneva,  the 
Elector  of  Saxony,  and  others  ivho  favoured  the  Reformation, 

CARRIED    THIS  PRINCIPLE  INTO    EXECUTION,  that    thc    advOCtttCS    of 

the  NEw-LiGiiT  DOCTRINE  generally  represent  them  as  but  partial- 
ly enlightened  on  this  article  ;  and  if  they  go  7iot  the  length  of 
condemning  them  as  bigots,  they  represent  them  as  not  fully 
emancipated  from  thc  shackles  of  Antichrist.^''  (4)  We  shall 
see  more  of  this  bye-and-bye. 

(1)  P.  38.  (2)  Deut.  xiii.  5,  6,  12. 

(3)  P.  54.  (4)  P.  58. 


355 

Again.  "  The  penal  statutes  enacted  in  various  Reforming 
parliaments,  against  idolaters  and  heretics,  prove  incontcstibly, 
'that,  at  that  time  at  least,  and  by  those  men,  whom  we  are  ac- 
customed TO  VENERATE,  US  Valiant  loitnesses  for  the  truth,  the 
suppressio7i  of  idolatry  and  heresy,  by  the  authority  of  the  civil 
magistrate,  ivas  regarded  as  an  indispensable  duty."  (1) 

"  The  article  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  (2)  ivhich  as- 
serts, that  all  blasphemies  and  heresies  should  be  suppressed,  by 
the  magistrate'' s  authority  ;  and  the  solemn  league  and  covenant, 
a  deed  which  was  sanctioned  by  the  highest  legislative  council  hi 
the  nation,  and  cheerfully  taken  by  persons  of  all  ranks  and  con- 
ditions at  that  day,  in  which  the  swearers  bind  themselves,  each 

*  ACCORDING    TO  HIS  STATION,  AND    MEANS    COMPETENT  THERETO,  tO 

■extirpate  superstition,  heresy,  schism,  profaneness,  &c.,'  ex- 
hibit with  a  clearness  not  to  be  misunderstood,  the  doctrine 
which  they  maintained  on  this  subject.^'  (S) 

After  having  noticed  the  "gratuitous  assertions,"  as  he  calls  them, 
'of  "infidel  writers"  and  "pretended  liberals,"  Mr.  Houston  states  a 
'fact,  which  shows  how  little  Mr.  Breckinridge's  statement,  as  to 
Presbyterians  having  been  the  friends  of  liberty  of  conscience,  is  to 
'be  depended  on.     "  Besides,  the  sectaries  z^/io  abetted  the  cause  of 
liberty  of  conscience  and  toleration,  both  in  the  IVestminster  As- 
sembly, and  the  councils  of  the  nation,  were  men  of  learning  and 
address,  and  possessed  of  extensive  influence.     Not unths landing 
these  powerful  obstacles,  the  good  hand  of  the  Lord  was  vi- 
sibly upon  his  servants."  (4)     Here  is   the   acknowledgment, 
that  the  pleaders  for  toleration,  were  the  Sectaries,  and  that  the 
Presbyterians  defeated  their  purpose.     Yet  you  have  heard  their 
liberality  spoken  of.  The  gendeman  will  say  this  is  Houston,  a  Re- 
formed Presbyterian.     Yes ;  but  he  is  unlblding  the  principles  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith.     For  instance,  "  When  the  abettors  of 
error  are  restrained  by  the  civil  magistrate,  and  when  lie  acts  in 
every  respect  as  a  true  '  nursing  father  to  the  church,'  faith- 
ful ministers  tvill  be  encouraged  in  their  labours,  and  the  diffi- 
culties that  now  oppose  their  success  in  the  ministry,  will  be  in  a 
great  measure  removed.^'  (5)     He  goes  on  to  say,  that  "  In  no 
country,  without  the  aid  of  the  civil  magistrate,  can  Chrisiicmity 
(Presbyterianism)  universally  prevail.'"     And  as  a  proof  of  this, 
he  cites  an  example  which  ought  to  make  the  gentleman  and  his 
colleagues  blush.     ''Popish  delusions  received  no  effectual  check 
in  Scotland,  till  the  rulers  and  nobles  of  the  land  put  their  hand 
to  the  work,  and  called  into  exercise  their  official  authority, 
TO  restrain  and  punish  the  enemies  of  the  truth."  (6)     What 
is  this,  but  to  acknowledge  that  the  Presbyterian  religion  was  es- 


(1)  P.  59.  (2)   Chap,  xxiii.  (3)  P.  62. 

(4)  Ibid.  p.  63.  (5)  Ibid.  p.  65.  (6)  Ibid.  p.  66. 


356 

tablished  by  the  magistrate,  and  the  Catholic,  refuted  by  the  ar- 
gument of  the  sword  I 

After  showing  the  advantages  of  the  magistrates  being,  as  the 
church  requires,  and  as  they  used  to  be,  "  nursing  fathers,"  he 
shows  the  evils  of  the  opposite,  which  he  calls  the  "  new-light," 
system.  "  Consequences  of  the  new-light  scheme  exemplified  in 
France,  and  in  the  United  States  of  America.''^  (1)  For  the 
evils  of  the  system  in  this  country,  he  quotes  from  Doctor  Dwight 
and  Doctor  13eccher.  (2)  "  Tlie  United  States  afford  another 
specimen  of  the  ivorking  of  the  7iciv-light  scheme,  though  even 
there,  the  principle  is  by  no  means  carried  info  full  extent.  The 
government  of  this  land  of  freedom,  as  it  is  boastingly  termed, 
not  only  contains  no  direct  recognition  of  the  moral  Governor 
of  the  Universe,  offers  no  homage  to  Messiah,  hut  makes  it  essen- 
tial, that  no  favour  shoidd  he  extended  to  the  Church  of  Christ, 
more  than  to  any  merely  civil  institution,  ivhile  her  avowed  ene- 
mies are  eligible  to  all  places  of  power  and  trust,  and  the  fullest 
toleration  is  extended  to  every  species  of  error  and  irreligion.^^  (3) 
Let  any  one  compare  this  with  the  doctrine  of  the  "  nursing 
fathers,"  and  the  "Christian  party  in  politics,"  and  the  late  po- 
litical campaign  of  the  Rev.  junto  of  Presbyterian  ministers,  and 
see  whether  every  expression,  and  every  movement,  is  not  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  doctrines  which  I  have  already  quoted  from  the 
Confession  of  Faith. 

Among  the  evils  deplored  by  this  writer,  as  the  consequence  of 
our  free  American  government,  is  the  very  one  with  which  my  Rev. 
opponent  and  his  colleagues  are  endeavouring  to  stir  up  the  peo- 
ple to  intolerance.  "  With  all  the  vigour  and  zeal  of  the  churches 
in  the  United  States,  in  consequence  of  the  neglect  of  the 
CIVIL  ruler  on  the  score  of  religion,  the  idolatry  of  popery 

is  spreading  with  rapidity.^\4) What  is  all  this  but  the 

acknowledgment  that,  without  the  help  of  the  civil  magistrate, 
Presbyterianism  cannot  flourish?  The  whole,  and  only  defence 
that  the  gentleman  can  make,  is,  that  he  does  not  hold  these  doc- 
trines. He!  Of  what  importance  is  he  in  the  question?  J  bring 
expounders  of  his  doctrines,  who  wrote  in  the  absence  of  the 
motives  which  seem  to  operate  on  the  gentleman  just  now, 
and  he  flings  them  all  overboard!  He  is  not  "  answerable  for 
Dr.  Miller;"  Dr.  Ely  is  a  "busy,  loquacious  man;"  Dr.  Wilie 
"  belongs  not  to  our  communion ;"  and  he  "  regrets,"  and  is 
"surprised."  The  only  one  whom  he  has  not  disowned  is 
Dr.  Brownlee,  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  or  Presbyterian  Church. 
And  this  man's  Confession  of  Faith  makes  it  a  duty,  imposed  on 
the  civil  magistrates  of  this  free  country,  to  ^'•protect  the  sacred 
ministry  ;''^  and  "  remove  and  prevent  all  idolatry  and  false 
worship." "  Wherefore,"    the   doctor  and   his  associates 

(1)  Ibid.  p.  67.  (2)  P.  69.  (3)  P.  69.  (4)  P.  70. 


357 

■<*  detest  the  Anabaptists  and  other  seditious  people,^^  who  do  not 
agree  with  his  creed  in  holding  these  anti-American  doctrines.  The 
representative  of  this  creed,  a  Scotch  foreigner,  the  gentleman 
calls  his  "  gallant  colleague ;"  by  which  it  is  manifest  that  the 
doctrine  obtains  his  approval,  as  being  orthodox,  and  in  strict 
conformity  with  his  own  creed,  which  obliges  all  Presbyterians 

to  "  REMOVE  ALL  FALSE  WORSHIP,  AND  ALL  THE  MONUMENTS  OF 
IDOLATRY." 

Sir,  the  gentleman's  disclaimer  of  intolerance,  in  the  name  of 
the  Presbyterian  doctrine,  is  a  sufficient  evidence  that  he  is  better 
acquainted  with  "  Cramp's  Text  Book  of  Popery,"  than  with  the 
standards  and  theology  of  his  own  communion.  I  will  now  quote 
but  one  single  doctrine,  which  he  is  bound  by  his  ordination  vows 
to  preach  and  maintain  as  a  "  tenet  of  faith  or  morals  revealed  by 
Almighty  God."  It  is,  that  all  Presbyterians  are  commanded  by 
Jehovah,  not  only  to  detest  and  oppose,  but  also,  "  according 

TO  EACH  one's  PLACE  AND  CALLING,  TO  REMOVE  ALL  FALSE  WORSHIP, 

AND  ALL  THE  MONUMENTS  OF  IDOLATRY.  As  a  Commentary  on 
this  avowed  doctrine,  I  shall  quote  the  standards  of  Presbyterians 
of  other  countries,  to  show  that  this  single  article  contains  the 
essence  of  all  the  intolerance  which  was  honestly  expiessed  by 
this  sect,  previous  to  the  national  establishment  of  liberty  of  con- 
science in  this  republic — to  which  its  spirit  is  so  emphatically 
adverse. 


STANDARDS  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  RELIGION. 

"  That  papistry  and  superstition  may  be  UTTERLY  SUP- 
**  PRESSED,  according  to  the  intention  of  the  Acts  of  Parliament, 
"  repeated  in  the  5th  Act,  Pari.  20,  King  James.  VI.  And  to 
"  that  end  they  ordain  all  papists  and  priests  to  BE  PUNISH- 
"  ED  WITH  MANIFOLD  CIVIL  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL 
**  PAINS,  as  adversaries  to  God's  true  religion,  preached,  and 
"  BY  LAW  ESTABLISHED,  within  this  realm,  Act  24,  Pari.  1 1 , 
■*'  King  James  VI. ;  as  common  enemies  to  all  Christian  govern- 
"  ment.  Act  18,  Pari.  16,  King  James  VI.;  as  rebellers  and 
■*'  gainstanders  of  our  sovereign  lord's  authority,  Act  47,  Pari.  3, 
"  King  James  VI.  (Acts  of  Parliament  embodied  in  the  National 
"  Covenant,  and  afterwards  approved  by  the  compilers  of  the  Act 
**  and  Testimony)." 

This  shows  the  character  of  that  Gospel  by  which  Presbyte- 
rianism  was  established  in  Scotland ;  and  sufficiently  indicates  the 
duty  of  the  magistrates,  as  nursing  fathers."     But  again — 

*'  That  all  kings  and  princes,  at  their  coronation,  and  reception 
"  of  their  princely  authority,  shall  make  their  faithful  promise, 
"  by  their  solemn  oath,  in  the  presence  of  their  eternal  God,  that 
*'  during  the  whole  time  of  their  lives,  they  shall  serve  the  same 
"  eternal  God,  to  the  utmost  of  their  power,  according  as  he  hath 


358 

**  required  in  his  most  holy  word,  contained  in  the  Old  and  New 
^'  Testament;  and,  according  to  the  same  word,  shall  maintain 
*'  the  true  religion  of  Christ  Jesns,  the  preaching  of  his  holy 
**  word,  the  due  and  right  ministration  of  the  sacraments  now 
•*'  received  and  preached  within  this  realm,  (according  to  the 
"CONFESSION  OF  FAITH  IMMEDIATELY  PRECED- 
"  ING)  and  shall  ABOLISH  and  gainstand  ALL  FALSE  RE- 
"  LIGION  CONTRARY  TO  THE  SAME  ;  and  shall  rule  the 
*'  people  committed  to  their  charge,  according  to  the  will  and 
''  command  of  God,  REVEALED  IN  HIS  FORESAID  WORD, 
"  and  according  to  the  laudable  laws  and  constitutions  received  in 
"  this  realm,  no  wise  repugnant  to  the  said  will  of  the  eternal  God ; 
"  and  shall  procure  to  the  utmost  of  their  power,  to  the  kirk  of 
"  God,  and  whole  Christian  people,  true  and  perfect  peace  in  all 
"time  coming;  and  that  they  shall  be  careful  to  ROOT  OUT 
"  OF  THEIR  EMPIRE  ALL  HERETICS  and  enemies  to  the 
"  TRUE  WORSHIP  of  God,  who  shall  be  convicted  by  the 
"  TRUE  KIRK  of  God  of  the  foresaid  crimes."(l) 

Here  is  the  origin  of  that  commandment  which  requires  Pres- 
byterians to "  oppose  and  remove,  according  to  each  one's 

place  and  calling,  all  false  worship,  and  all  the  monuments  of 
idolatry.     Again,  still — 

"  That  we  shall,  in  like  manner,  without  respect  of  per- 
**  sons,  endeavour  the  extirpation  of  popery,  prelacy  (that  is 
**  church-government  by  archbishops,  bishops,  their  chancellors, 
*'  and  commissaries,  deans,  deans  and  chapters,  archdeacons,  and 
*'  all  other  ecclesiastical  officers  depending  on  that  hierarchy), 
"  SUPERSTITION,  HERESY,  SCHISM,  PROFANENESS, 
"  and  whatsoever  shall  be  found  to  be  contrary  to  sound  doctrine 
**  and  the  power  of  godliness ;  lest  we  partake  in  other  men's 
"  sins,  and  thereby  be  in  danger  to  receive  of  their  plagues ;  and 
"  that  the  Lord  may  be  one,  and  his  name  one,  in  the  three  king- 
"  doms."(2) 

This  was  in  England,  in  1643 — more  than  a  hundred  years 
after  the  so-called  Reformation.     But  let  the  standards  proceed. 

"  When  any  thing  is  amiss,  we  will  endeavour  a  reformation 
*'  in  a  fair  and  orderly  way,  and  where  reformation  is  settled,  we 
*'  resolve,  with  that  authority  wherewith  God  hath  vested  us,  to 
**  maintain  and  defend  it  in  peace  and  liberty  against  all  trouble 
"  that  can  come  from  without,  and  against  all  HERESIES, 
"  SECTS,  AND  SCHISMS,  which  may  arise  from  within."(3) 

"  We  shall  be  bold  to  warn  your  majesty  really,  that  the  guilt 
"  which  cleaveth  fast  to  your  majesty  and  to  your  throne,  is  such 
"  as  (whatsoever  flattering  preachers  or  unfaithful  counsellors  may 

(1)  Coronation  Oath  in  the  National  Covenant. 

(2)  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  Art.  2. 

(3)  Acts  of  Assembly,  16.38. 


359 

"  say  to  the  contrary)  if  not  timely  repented,  cannot  but  involve 
"  yourself  and  your  posterity  under  the  wrath  of  the  ever-living 
"  God,  for  your  being  guilty  of  the  shedding  of  the  blood  of  m-any 
"  thousands  of  vour  majesty's  best  subjects;  for  your  PERMIT- 
*'  TING  THE*  MASS  and  other  idolatry,  both  in  your  own. 
"  family  and  in  your  dominions. "(1) 

This  was  the  Assembly  which  framed  the  gentleman's  CON- 
FESSION OF  FAITH.  The  king  was  so  far  friendly  to  liberty 
of  conscience,  as  to  "  permit"  the  saying  of  mass,  and  this  was  to 
draw  upon  him  the  "  wrath  of  God."     Again — 

"  So,  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  upon  these  passages  and  pro- 
*'  ceedings,  hath  followed  the  interrupting  of  the  so  much  longed 
*'  for  reformation  of  religion,  of  the  settling  by  Presbyterian 
"  government,  and  of  THE  SUPPRESSING  OF  HERESIES 
"  AND  DANGEROUS  ERRORS,  which  works  the  PARLIA- 
"  MENT  HAD  TAKEN  IN  HAND."(2) 

"  We  are  also  very  sensible  of  the  great  and  imminent  dangers 
"  into  which  this  common  cause  of  religion  is  now  brought  by 
*'  the  growing  and  spreading  of  most  dangerous  errors  in  England, 
"  to  the  obstructing  and  hindering  of  the  begun  reformation;  as, 
*'  namely,  besides  many  others,  Socinianism,  Arminianism,  Ana- 
"  baptism,  Erastianism,  Brownism,  Antinomianism,  Independency, 
*'  and  that  which  is  called  (by  abuse  of  the  word)  LIBERTY 
"  OF  CONSCIENCE,  being  indeed  liberty  of  error,  scandal, 
*'  schism,  heresy,  dishonouring  God,  opposing  the  truth,  hinder- 
*'  ing  reformation,  and  seducing  others. (3) 

Will  the  gentleman  say  that  this  is  not  evidence  to  show  the 
bearing  of  Presbyterian  doctrines  on  civil  and  religious  liberty  ? 
These  were  the  men  who  understood  the  Confession  of  Faith — 
and  explained  it. 

"  The  General  Assembly,  considering  how  the  errors  of  INDE- 
"  PENDENCY  and  SEPARATION  have,  in  our  neighbour 
"  kingdom  of  England,  spread  as  a  gangrene,  and  do  daily  eat  as 
"a  canker;  insomuch  that  exceeding  many  errors,  heresies, 
"  schisms,  and  blasphemies  have  issued  therefrom,  and  are  shelt- 
"  ered  thereby;  and  how  possible  it  is  for  the  SAME  EVILS  TO 
*'  INVADE  AND  OVERSPREAD  THIS  KIRK  AND  KING- 
''  DOM,  (lying  within  the  same  island,)  BY  THE  SPREADING 
"  OF  THEIR   ERRONEOUS  BOOKS,   PAMPHLETS,   LI- 

"  BELS,  AND  LETTERS that  some  course  may  be 

"  taken  to  hinder  the  dispersing  thereof;  and  hereby  all  Presby- 
"  terians  and  synods  arc  ordained  to  try  and  process  such  as  shall 
*'  transgress  against  the  premises,  or  any  part  of  the  same :  And 


(1)  Remonstrance  to  the  King — ^^cts  of  .Assembly,  February,  1645. 

(2)  Declaration   and    Brotherly  Exhortation,  in   the   Acts  of  Assemblyy 
August,  1647. 

(3)  Declaration  and  Brotherly  Exhortation. 


360 

*'  the  Assembly  also  doth  seriously  recommend  to  civil  magis- 
**  trates  that  they  may  be  pleased  to  be  assisting  to  ministers 
"  and  presbyteries  in  execution  of  this  act,  and  to  concur  with 
**  their  authority  in  everything  to  that  effect."  (1) 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

*  *  '*  That  notwithstanding  hereof,  the  civil  magistrate  ought 
**  to  suppress,  by  corporal  or  civil  punishments,  such  as,  by 
**  spreading  error  or  heresy,  or  by  fomenting  schism,  greatly  dis- 
**  honour  God,  dangerously  hurt  religion,  and  disturb  the  PEACE 
"  OF  THE  KIRK.  WHICH  HEADS  OF  DOCTRINE,  (how- 
"  soever  OPPOSED  by  the  AUTHORS  and  fomentors  of  the 
**  foresaid  errors  respectively,)  the  General  Assembly  doth  FIRM- 
"LY  BELIEVE,  OWN,  MAINTAIN,  AND  COMMEND 
"UNTO  OTHERS  AS  SOLID,  TRUE,  ORTHODOX, 
"  GROUNDED  UPON  THE  WORD  OF  GOD,  consonant 
*'  to  the  judgment  both  of  the  ancient  and  THE  BEST  RE- 
"  FORMED  KIRKS.  (CXI.  Proposition,  8th  Head.") 

The  profession  of  faith,  in  divinity  of  Christ,  by  the  Council  of 
Nice,  is  not  more  emphatic  than  the  doctrine  of  magistrates 
here  laid  down — as  true,  orthodox,  grounded  on  the  word  of 
God,"  &c. 

"  As  also,  that,  as  the  ambassadors  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his 
**  watchmen,  you  will  give  seasonable  warning  to  the  honourable 
**  Houses  of  Parliament,  that  now,  (after  the  loss  of  the  oppor- 
"  tunity  of  so  many  years,)  they  would,  IN  THEIR  PLACES, 
"  repair  the  House  of  the  Lord,  that  lieth  so  long  desolate,  and 
**  promote  the  work  of  reformation  and  UNIFORMITY  accord- 
"  ing  to  the  Covenant.  For,  if  the  honourable  Houses  of  Parlia- 
**  ment  had  timely  made  use  of  that  power,  which  God  hath  put 
"  in  their  hands  for  suppressing  of  sectaries,  and  had  taken  a 
"  speedy  course  for  settling  of  Presbyterial  government,  {a  spe- 
"  cial  and  effectual  means  appointed  by  God  to  purge  his  Church 
**from  all  scandals  in  doctrine  and  practice,)  then,  had  not  THE 
"INSOLENCY  OF  THAT  PARTY  ARISEN  to  such  a 
"  height,  as  to  give  occasion  to  the  MALIGNANTS  of  both  king- 
*'  doms  to  justify  and  bless  themselves  in  their  old  opposition  to 
"  the  work  of  reformation,  and  to  encourage  one  another  to  new 
♦'  and  more  dangerous  attempts.  (2) 

Some  of  the  audience  may  not  be  aware  that  "  mcdignants^* 
was  the  term  employed  to  designate  the  Episcopalians — the  old 
argument  of  nicknames,  instead  of  reason. 

"  And  because  the  POWERS  which  God  hath  ordained,  and 
*♦  the  liberty  which  Christ  hath  purchased,  are  not  intended 
**  by  God  to  destroy,  but  mutually  to  uphold  and  preserve  one  an- 

(1)  Acts  of  Assembly,  August,  1617.  This  was  the  Assembly  that  received 
and  approved  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith. 

(2)  Acts  of  Assembly,  August  2,  1648. 


361 

"  other ;  they  who,  UPON  PRETENCE  OF  CHRISTIAN 
"  LIBERTY,  SHALL   OPPOSE  ANY  LAWFUL  POWER, 

"  or  the  lawful  exercise  of  it,  whether  it  be  CIVIL  OR  ECCLE- 
"  SIASTICAL,  resist  the  ORDINANCE  OF  GOD.  And  for 
"  their  publishing  of  such  opinions,  or  maintaining  of  such  prac- 
"  tices,  as  are  contrary  to  the  light  of  nature,  or  to  the  known 
"  principles  of  Christianity,  whether  CONCERNING  FAITH, 
*'  WORSHIP,  or  conversation;  or  to  the  power  of  godliness;  or 
"  such  erroneous  opinions  or  practices,  as,  either,  in  their  own 
"  nature,  or  in  the  manner  of  publishing  or  maintaining  them,  are 
*'  destructive  to  the  external  peace  and  order  which  Christ  hath 
"  established  in  the  Church :  they  may  lawfully  be  called  to  ac- 
**  count,  and  proceeded  against  by  the  censures  of  the  Church, 
**  (and  by  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate.")  (1) 

The  words  in  parenthesis  are  omitted  in  the  present  republican 
edition,  as  something  offensive  to  the  eye.  But  the  rest  of  the 
article  makes  the  sense  complete ;  and  besides,  omission  is  no  con- 
tradiction. 

('*  The  following  Scriptures,  amongst  others,  are  referred  to  by 
"  the  compilers,  in  proof  of  the  doctrine  which  they  have  here 
"  advanced  : — Ezra,  vii.  23.  '  Whatsoever  is  commanded  by  the 
"  God  of  heaven,  let  it  be  diligently  done  for  the  house  of  the  God 
*'  of  heaven:  for  why  should  there  be  wrath  against  the  realm  of 
*'  the  king  and  his  sons  V  Ver.  25.  '  And  thou,  Ezra,  after  the 
"  wisdom  of  thy  God  that  is  in  thy  hand,  sit  magistrate  and  judges 
"  which  may  judge  all  the  people  that  are  beyond  the  river,  all 
*'  such  as  know  the  laws  of  thy  God;  and  teach  ye  them  that 
*'  know  them  not.'  Ver.  26.  '  And  whosoever  will  not  do  the 
"  law  of  thy  God,  and  the  LAW  OF  the  king,  let  judgment  be 
*'  executed  speedily  upon  him,  whether  it  be  unto  death,  or  to 
"  banishment,  or  to  confiscation  of  goods,  or  to  imprisonment.' — 
*'  Zech.  xiii.  2.  '  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  saith  the 
*'  Lord  of  hosts,  that  I  will  cut  off  the  names  of  the  idols  out  of 
"  the  land,  and  they  shall  no  more  be  remembered :  and  also  I 
"  will  cause  the  prophets  and  the  unclean  spirits  to  pass  out  of  the 
*'  land.'  Ver.  3.  '  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  when  any  shall 
*♦  yet  prophecy,  then  his  father  and  his  mother  that  begat  him 
"  shall  say  unto  him,  thou  shah  not  live  ;  for  thou  speakest  lies  in 
*'  the  name  of  the  Lord ;  and  his  father  and  his  mother  that  begat 
"  him  shall  thrust  him  through  when  he  prophesieth.'  ") 

*'  The  civil  magistrate  may  not  assume  to  himself  the  adminis- 
*'  tration  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  or  the  power  of  the  keys  of 
*'  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  (yet he  has  authority,  and  it  is  his  duty, 
"  to  take  order,  that  unity  and  peace  be  preserved  in  the  Church, 
"  that  the  truth  of  God  be  kept  pure  and  entire,  that  all  blasphe- 
**  mies  and  heresies  be  suppressed,  all  corruptions  and  abuses  in 

(1)  Westminster  Confession,  Chap.  XX.  Art.  4. 
46 


362 

♦*  worship  and  discipline  prevented  or  reformed,  and  all  the  ordi- 
'*  nances  of  God  duly  settled,  administered,  and  observed.  For 
'*  the  better  effecting  whereof,  he  hath  power  to  call  synods,  to  be 
"  present  at  them,  and  to  provide  that  whatsoever  is  transacted  in 
"  them  be  according  to  the  mind  of  God.")  (1) 

The  words  in  parenthesis  are  omitted  since  the  Revolution  ;  and 
the  very  ambiguous  phrase,  appointing  the  magistrates  of  this 
country  to  be  "  nursing  fathers  to  the  church,"  substituted.  But 
the  magistrates  not  being  always  orthodox,  the  "  baby"  has  been 
much  neglected,  and  Dr.  Ely,  naturally  enough,  wished  to  .see  all 
offices  filled  by  Presbyterians. 

"  Lev.  xxiv.  16.  And  he  that  blasphemeth  the  name  of  the 
"  Lord,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death;  and  all  the  congregation 
"  shall  certainly  stone  him ;  as  well  the  stranger,  as  he  that  is  born 
'*  in  the  land,  when  he  blasphemeth  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be 
'*  put  to  death."  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  33.  "  And  Josiah  took  away 
"^  all  the  abominations  out  of  the  countries  that  pertained  to  the 
"  children  of  Israel,  and  made  all  that  were  present  in  Israel  to 
"  serve,  even  to  serve  the  Lord  their  God,  and  all  his  days  they 
"  departed  not  from  following  the  Lord,  the  God  of  their  fathers." 

In  perfect  keeping  with  all  the  foregoing,  is  the  following  arti- 
cle, which  requires  only  to  be  understood.  It  appears  smooth  ; 
but  every  clause  is  pregnant  with  hostility  to  the  rights  of  con- 
science, and  to  ''  civil,  as  well  as  religious  liberty." 

"  And  also  the  disapproving,  detesting,  opposing  all  false 
^^  worship  ;  and  according  to  each  one''s  place  and  calling,  re- 
♦'  moving  it  and  all  monuments  of  idolatry.'''  (2) 

Let  us  now  see  whether  this  was  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Churches  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  as  well  as  where 
the  Westminster  Confession  prevails. 

The  celebrated  Francis  Turretin,  Professor  of  Theology  in 
Geneva,  expresses  himself  fully  on  this  topic,  and  by  various  ar- 
guments, shows  the  right  of  the  magistrate  to  punish  with  civil 
pains,  gross  heretics,  idolaters  and  blasphemers.  In  endeavour- 
ing to  establish  this  point,  he  lays  down  this  position,  that  "  MA- 
"  GISTRATES  have  the  right  to  restrain  contumacious  and  OB- 
"  STINATE  HERETICS,  who  cannot  be  CURED  of  their 
"  errors,  and  who  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and  even  to 
*'  inflict  upon  them  due  punishment."  "  Since  magistrates,"  he 
adds  for  confirmation,  "  are  keepers  oi"  BOTH  TABLES,  and  the 
"  care  of  religion  pertains  to  them,  they  ought  to  provide  that  it  should 
"  suffer  no  injury,  and  should  in  wisdom  oppose  those  who  assert 
**  it,  lest  the  poison  insinuate  itself  more  widely,  and  be  diffused 
"  through  the  whole  body.  But  magistrates  cannot  protect  reli- 
"  gion,  unless  they  restrain  the  obstinate  and  factious  contemners 

(1)  Westminster  Confession,  Chap.  XXIII.  Art.  3. 

(2)  Larger  Catechism,  Quest.  108. 


363 

"  thereof.  Such  interference,  both  the  glory  of  God,  of  which 
"  they  are  the  defenders,  and  the  safety  of  the  commonwealth,  of 
*'  which  they  are  the  guardians,  demand.  If  less  evils  are  restrain- 
"ed  by  heavy  penalties,  this,  which  is  the  greatest,  which  injures 
"the  trust  of  God,  which  blasphemes  his  name,  which  rends^the 
"  Church,  which  corrupts  the  faith,  and  brings  into  danger  the 
"  safety  of  the  faithful,  should  not  be  permitted  to  go  unpunished. 
"  Rather  is  there  frequently  required,  that  a  speedy  and  powerful 
**  remedy  be  applied;  inasmuch,  as  from  this  quarter,  the  destruc- 
"  tion  of  the  whole  body  is  threatened,  unless  the  application  be 
"  quickly  made." 

*'  For  this  purpose,  the  laws  of  Moses  against  apostates,  blas- 
"  phemers,  false  prophets,  (fee.  were  given,  as  in  Deut.  xiii.  5,  and 
*'xvii.  12;  Levit.  xxiv.  16,  with  the  same  design,  there  ars  set 
"  before  us  the  examples  of  Moses,  and  of  pious  kings  in  the  Old 
"  Testament,  who  reformed  religion,  and  restrained  FALSE  PRO- 
"  PHETS,  HERETICS,  and  IDOLATERS,  and  never  hesitated 
"  moreover,  to  inflict  upon  them  various  civil  punishments  ;  and 
"also  the  examples  of  Christian  princes,  in  New  Testament  times, 
"  who  passed  several  laws  against  heretics,  and  visited  them  not 
"  only  with  imprisonment  and  exile,  but  coerced  them  likewise 
"  with  severer  punishment."  Again  he  asserts,  that  "  the  magis- 
"  trates  can  restrain  heretics,  and  punish  them,  and  according  to 
'*  the  nature  of  their  crime  ;  if,  for  instance  they  are  blasphemers, 
"  and  factious  and  seditious,  he  may  inflict  on  them  capital  pun- 
"  ishment."  And  afterwards  he  advocates  the  application  of  capi- 
tal punishments  in  such  extreme  cases,  from,  1.  The  atrocity  of 
the  crime  ;  and  2.  The  authority  of  God  declared  in  the  law.  (1) 

The  confessions  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  expressly  assign  to 
the  Christian  civil  magistrate  this  coersive  and  punitive  power, 
in  matters  of  religion.  The  first  confession  of  Helvetia,  declares, 
"  Seeing  that  every  magistrate  is  of  God,  his  CHIEF  DUTY,  ex- 
"  cept  it  please  him  to  exercise  tyranny,  consisteth  in  this :  lo  de- 
"  fend  religion  from  all  blasphemy,  to  promote  it,  as  the  prophet 
"  teacheth,  out  of  the  word  of  the  Lord,  to  see  it  put  in  practice, 
"  as  far  as  lies  in  him."  The  latter  confession  of  Helvetia,  which 
was  expressly  approved  by  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  other  re- 
formed Churches,  teaches,  that  "  magistracy,  of  whatever  sort  it 
"  be,  is  ordained  of  God  himself,  for  the  peace  and  tranquillity  of 
"  mankind ;  so  that  the  magistracy  ought  to  have  the  chief  place 
"  in  the  world.  If  he  be  an  adversary  to  the  Church,  he  may 
"  greatly  hinder  and  disturb  it ;  but  if  he  be  a  FRIEND  and  MEM- 
"  BER  of  the  Church,  he  is  a  most  profitable  member,  and  may 
"  excellently  aid  and  advance  it.  His  principal  duty  is  to  procure 
"  and  maintain  peace  and  public  tranquillity  ;  which  doubtless  he 
"  will  never  do  more  happily  than  when  he  is  seasoned  with  the 

(1)  See  Turret,  De  Polit.  Ecc.  gubern.  quaesti  xxxiv. 


364 

**  fear  of  God,  and  true  religion,  particularly  when  he  shall,  after 
"  the  examples  of  the  most  holy  kings  and  princes  of  the  people 
"  of  the  Lord,  advance  the  preaching  of  the  truth,  and  the  pure 
'*  unadulterated  faith,  shall  EXTIRPATE  FALSEHOOD,  and 
"ALL  SUPERSTITION,  IMPIETY,  and  IDOLATRY,  and 
**  shall  defend  the  Church  of  God ;  for  indeed  we  teach  that  the 
"  care  of  religion  doth  chiefly  appertain  to  the  holy  magistrate." 
The  confession  of  Saxony  declares,  that  "  the  word  of  God  doth 
"  in  general,  teach  this,  concerning  the  power  of  the  magistrate ; 
"  first,  that  God  wills  that  the  magistrates,  without  all  doubt, 
"  should  sound  forth  the  voice  of  the  moral  law  among  men,  ac- 
*'  cording  to  the  ten  commandments,  or  law  natural,  by-laws  for- 
"  bidding  idolatry  and  blasphemies,  as  well  as  murders,  theft,  &;c." 
for  well  has  it  been  said  of  old :  "  THE  MAGISTRATE  IS  A 
"KEEPER  OF  THE  LAW,  i.  e.  OF  THE  FIRST  AND  SE- 
"  COND  TABLE,  as  concerning  discipline  and  good  order.  This 
"  ought  to  be  their  special  care,  (of  kingdoms  and  their  rulers,)  to 
"  hear  and  embrace  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  to 
"  cherish  the  Churches,  according  to  Psalm  ii.  and  xxiv.  and 
"Isaiah  xlix.,  and  KINGS  AND  QUEENS  SHALL  BE  THY 
"  NURSES,  i.  e.  let  commonwealths  be  NURSES  OF  THE 
"  CHURCH,  and  to  godly  studies."  The  Dutch  Confession 
teaches,  that  God  "  hath  armed  the  magistrate  with  a  sword,  to 
"  punish  the  bad,  and  defend  the  good.  Furthermore,  it  is  their 
"  duty  to  be  careful  not  only  to  preserve  the  civil  polity,  but  also 
"  to  endeavour  that  the  ministry  be  preserved :  that  all  idolatry 
"  and  COUNTERFEIT  WORSHIP  be  abolished,  the  kingdom 
"  of  Antichrist  be  brought  down,  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ  be 
"enlarged;  in  fine,  that  it  is  their  duty  to  bring  it  to  pass,  that 
"  the  holy  word  of  the  Gospel  be  preached  everywhere,  that  all 
"  men  may  serve  God,  purely  and  freely,  according  to  the  pre- 
"  scribed  will  of  his  word."  And  the  French  Confession  de- 
clares, "  that  God  hath  delivered  the  sword  into  the  magistrate's 
"hand,  that  so  sins  committed  against  BOTH  TABLES  OF 
"  GOD'S  law,  not  only  against  the  second,  BUT  THE  FIRST 
"ALSO,  MAY  BE  SUPPRESSED." 

Here,  sir,  are  not  the  opinions  of  individuals.  Here,  the  spe- 
culations of  Doctor  Ely,  and  Mr.  Dens,  of  Bellarmine,  and  of  Doc- 
tor Wilie,  are  all  out  of  the  question.  Here  are  the  doctrinal 
foundations  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Here  we  have,  on  the 
subject  of  "  magistracy,"  "  nursing  fathers  to  the  church," 
"  heresy,"  "  false  worship,"  "  monuments  of  idolatry,"  "  both 
tables  of  the  law,"  &c.  &c.,  "  the  tenets  of  faith  and  morals, 
ivhich  that  denomination  held,  and  holds,  as  having  been  reveal- 
ed  by  Almighty  God.''^  Compare  them  one  with  another,  begin- 
ning at  Geneva,  you  will  find  that  royalists  or  republicans,  Swiss, 
Saxon,  Dutch,  French,  Scotch,  English  and  American,  they  all 
.agree  in  the  same  doctrine,  more  or  less  developed:  expressed 


365 

boldly  in  Geneva,  Holland,  Scotland,  and  England,  (during  Pres- 
byterian ascendancy  in  the  State,)  expressed  cautiously  in  the 
United  States,  since  the  revolution,  but  expressed  sufficiently 
everywhere. 

But,  says  the  gentleman,  where  have  Presbyterians  persecuted 
in  the  United  States  ?  I  answer,  wherever  they  obeyed  their  own 
doctrine,  rather  than  the  American  Constitution.  They  had  to 
break  the  second  commandment,  in  order  to  abstain  from  violat- 
ing the  rights  of  their  fellow-citizens,  by  "  removing  false  wor- 
ship, AND  MONUMENTS  OF  IDOLATRY."  But,  at  all  cvcuts,  they  did 
not  "  REMOVE  THEM."  Thauks  to  the  Constitution,  and  their  own 
good  sense,  but  none  to  their  doctrine,  or  some  of  their  parsons. 

There  is  one  thing  to  which  I  beg  leave  to  direct  the  attention 
of  this  meeting,  and  of  the  public.  It  is,  that  the  gentleman's 
quotation  of  my  language  is  not  to  be  depended  on.  I  will  give 
one  or  two  instances,  as  a  sample  of  the  rest,  too  numerous  to 
notice.  He  represents  me  glorying  the  title  of  "  Jesuit,"  and, 
as  ashamed  of  that  of  *'  Papist."  There  is  no  truth  in  either  of 
his  statements.  I  said,  that  the  title  Jesuit  did  not  belong  to  me, 
although  I  might  be  proud  to  be  the  defender  of  that  calumniated 
body.  I  said,  that  he  "  insultingly"  used  the  term  popery;  but  not 
that  I  was  ashamed  of  being  insulted,  nor  of  the  term  by  which 
the  insult  was  conveyed.  In  purporting  to  repeat  my  remarks 
about  the  other  denominations  of  Protestants,  he  makes  me  say, 
that  "  these  denominations  may  have  been  used  by  the  Presbyte- 
rians to  stir  up  this  fanatical  excitement" — and  then  adds,  that  I 
am  "  certainly  very  complimentary  to  them."  He  falsifies  my 
language,  and  then  charges  me  with  the  result  of  his  own  over- 
sight or  dishonesty.  My  words  were,  "  that  some  of  each  of 
these  denominations  may  have  been  used,  &c."  He  charges  me 
with  applying  the  word  "fools"  to  my  opponents;  and  yet, 
though  I  used  the  word,  there  is  no  truth  in  the  charge.  By  what 
name,  then,  is  it  customary  to  designate  those  who  assert  what  is 
false?  He  says,  that  I  "  hate"  and  "  fear"  Dr.  Beecher.  The 
fact  is  not  so.  That  gentleman  has  entitled  himself  to  the  "love" 
which  every  "  enemy"  has  a  right  to  claim  from  the  Christian 
disciple.  The  defenceless  females  and  children  of  Mount  Bene- 
dict, have  had  reason  to  "  fear"  him.  And  yet,  1  do  not  say,  that 
the  burning  of  the  convent  was  the  direct  motive  of  his  fiery  ser- 
mons in  Boston  and  Charlestown.  The  fact  is,  the  doctor  wanted 
money,  and,  like  some  of  his  brethren,  knew  that  he  could  extract 
more  by  denouncing  popery  than  by  preaching  the  gospel. 

He  says,  of  Dr.  Miller,  that  "  I  seem  to  covet  the  honour  of 
being  in  such  good  company."  Now,  the  fact  is,  that  I  do  not. 
I  know  and  speak  of  Dr.  Miller  only  as  an  author.  In  this  capa- 
city, the  portion  of  honour  that  remains  to  him,  is  too  small  to  be 
divided.  He  has  been  equally  various  and  unfortunate  in  his  con- 
itroversies.     His  literary  career  has  been  one  series  of  polemical 


366 

drubbings,  which  few  writers  have  so  richly  earned,  or  so  regu- 
larly received.  His  bad  logic  has  been  immortalized  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Duncan,  of  Baltimore ;  and  his  abuse  of  authors,  by  faithless 
citation,  in  the  Episcopal  ('o7itroversy,  has  been  placed  on  the 
pinnacle  of  notoriety,  by  Di.  Cooke,  of  Kentucky.  Still  he  may 
be,  as  the  gentleman  will  Jiave  it,  a  "lion;"  although  the  only 
trait  of  the  noble  animal  that  1  can  discover  in  the  doctor's  polemi- 
cal career,  is  the  majestic  silence  with  which  he  retires  to  his  den, 
as  often  as  he  is  foiled  in  the  open  field.  There  the  gentleman 
may  have  had  an  opportunity  of  admiring  him,  but,  as  "  porcu- 
pines" are  not  permitted  to  enter,  I  cannot  tell  how  he  looks.  If 
it  be  "  abuse,''^  to  state  a  fact  from  his  own  book,  and  make  the 
proper  commentary  on  it,  then  I  have  "  abused"  Dr.  Miller,  but 
not  otherwise.  I  know  nothing  of  him,  except  as  an  author,  and, 
as  such,  his  fame  excites  no  envy. 

The  gentleman  has  altered  his  tone  about  foreigners.  The  poor 
men  on  the  "railroads"  and  "canals"  are  the  foreigners  he  dreads. 
"  The  poor^  the  well-principled,  intelligent,  industrious  poor,  we 
welcome  and  confide  in."  I  thank  him,  in  their  name.  The 
feeling  does  honour  to  him.  But  then,  there  was  "  riot  and 
bloodshed"  on  the  Baltimore  Railroad;  and,  therefore,  he  says, 
"  The  emigrants  we  dread,  are  such  as  dig  our  canals  and  rail- 
roads, and  make  mobs  by  way  of  chorus,"  &c.  If,  instead  of 
making  "  mobs  by  way  of  chorus,"  they  had  made  mobs  by  way 
of  removing  a  false  religion,  or  a  monument  of  idolatry,  his  sen- 
sibilities would  not  be  shocked  in  the^least,  as  appears  from  the 
almost  inhuman  manner  in  which  he  seems  to  triumph  over  the 
destruction  of  the  convent.  His  language  is  this  : — "  But  I  will 
say  this,  that  there  is  a  certain  kind  of  houses,  which  the  Pope 
used  to  license  at  Borne,  which  the  boys  and  mobs  in  America, 
taking  Judge  Lynches  law,  sometimes  pull  doivn,  not  as  Protes- 
tants against  popery,  but  as  enemies  to  gross  immorcdities, 

which  we  cannot  name^    And  again,  " the  riotous  rabble, 

at  Boston,  taking  the  convent  for  *******  wickedly  burned 
it  downy  The  malignity  of  malice  itself,  was  foiled,  in  every 
attempt  to  fix  a  stigma  on  the  morcd  character  of  the  inmates  of 
the  convent,  and  no  one  will  envy  the  feelings  of  that  man,  who, 
in  addition  to  the  injuries  already  inflicted  on  them,  can  give  ut- 
terance to  so  foul  and  false  an  insinuation.  He,  the  advocate  of 
**  civil  and  religious  liberty  ! !" 

The  gentleman  speaks  of  my  "  attack  on  the  Sunday  School 
Union,"  and  quotes  William  Wirt  and  Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  to 
prove,  that  it  is  a  good  institution.  He  says,  I  "  denounce  this  noble 
charity."  And  again;  "Will  not  our  Catholic  laymen,  such  as 
Mathew  Carey,  blush  for  their  priest,  who  so  recklessly  assails 
such  institutions."  Now,  if  he  will  quote  from  my  speech  the 
passage  in  which  I  made  an  "  attack  on  the  Sunday  School 
Union,"  in  which  I  "denounced  this  noble  charity,"  in  which  I 


367 

**  assailed  this  institution,"  in  which  I  spoke  of  the  merits  of  the 
institution,  as  such,  I  promise  to  make  a  public  apology.  But, 
since  he  has  accused  me  of  all  these,  then,  if  he  cannot  furnish 
the  proof  from  my  speech,  I  charge  him  as  a  calumniator  of  my 
character.  I  now  put  him  to  the  test;  and  honest  men  will  see, 
whether  Presbyterians  have  not  more  occasion  to  blush  for  their 
*'  Minister  of  the  Gospel,"  than  Catholics  have  to  blush  for  me. 
I  have  made  the  penalty  emphatic,  in  order  to  bring  him  to  the 
test.  I  have  stated  facts.  1  have  quoted  from  the  records  of  the 
Sunday  School  Union,  and  if  the  quotations  reflect  on  its  charac- 
ter, the  fault  is  theirs — not  mine.  He  says,  "  Oh!  how  small 
and  how  ashamed  must  a  priest  of  Jlom,e  feel  before  the  sublim.e 
conceptions,  the  manly  rebuke,  the  just  defence  of  an  American 
layman  pleading  for  an  open  Bible  and  universal  education. . . ." 
This  is  a  hundred  miles'  from  the  argument.  Does  the  American 
laymen  plead  for  their  becoming  "  Dictators  to  the  consciences 

OF  THOUSANDS  OF  IMMORTAL  BEINGS?"    Is  THIS  the  "  Open  Bible?" 

for  "  CHANGING  EVEN  THE  iDEAs"  of  authors  ?  Is  this  "  Universal 
education?"  The  legitimate  object  of  the  Sunday  School  Union 
is  one  thing — the  abuses  into  which  faithless  agents,  or  sectarian 
ambition  may  betray  it,  are  another.  I  did  not  attack  the  institu- 
tion itself;  and,  therefore,  its  defence  was  supererogatory,  except 
to  keep  time  with  the  calumny  on  which  it  was  based.  The  gen- 
tleman says,  he  could  not  find  my  quotations,  by  which  he  in- 
sinuates, that  he  will  defend  them,  if  discovered.  He  will  find 
them  in  the  Appendix  to  Dr.  Ely's  Sermon,  published  with  remarks, 
by  the  doctor  himself,  at  the  oflice  of  William  F.  Geddes,  in 
1828.  We  shall  see,  whether  he  will  be  able  to  prove,  that  they 
are  nothing  but  "  an  open  Bible,  and  universal  education."  He 
says,  "  he  believes  it"  (dictators  to  the  consciences  of  thousands 
of  immortal  beings)  "  to  be  utterly  false;"  but  he  will  find,  that 
he  is  "  utterly"  mistaken. 

I  stated,  in  my  last,  that  for  all  the  money  which  the  Presbyte- 
rians send  out  of  the  country,  for  foreign  missions,  it  can  be  no 
great  harm  if  Catholics  should  bring  a  little  into  it.  In  reply,  he 
assumes,  that  in  Catholic  countries,  one-third  part  of  the  year  is 
wasted  in  "  worshipping,"  &c.;  "  immense  treasures  are  sunk  in 
adorning  images,"  &c.;  that  they  are  "  poor"  and  "  desolate ;" 
whereas,  Protestant  countries  are  rich  and  prosperous,  &c.  All 
this  is  the  gentleman's  assumption,  and,  if  it  were  true,  would 
only  prove,  that  Catholic  countries  are  poorer  than  Protestant 
countries.  But  what  becomes  of  the  other  part  of  his  story,  set- 
ting forth,  that  these  "  rich,"  "  enlightened,"  "  prosperous  Pro- 
testants," were  to  be  bought  up  by  the  vast  sums  of  money, 
which  the  poor,  ignorant,  debased  Catholics  were  sending  for  that 
purpose?  How  is  that?  Since  one  part  of  his  argument  refutes 
the  other,  he  ought  to  have  told  us  which  we  are  to  believe. 

Having  calumniated  me  as  an  "  assailant  of  the  Sunday  School 


368 

Union,"  it  is  not  '*  passing  strange,"  that  he  should  represent  me 
as  the  "  apologist"  of  the  inquisition,  and  the  "  advocate"  of  the 
Jesuits.  On  the  subject  of  the  inquisition,  I  proved,  that  it  had 
no  necessary  connexion  with  the  Catholic  religion;  that  it  was 
employed  as  an  engine  of  state  policy,  for  political  purposes ;  that 
the  Catholic  religion  existed  more  than  one  thousand  years  before 
the  inquisition  was  thought  of;  that  even  in  parts  of  Italy  itself, 
it  never  did  exist:  in  a  word,  I  enlightened  the  ignorance  of  the 
gentleman  in  relation  to  it.  If  he  states,  that  I  was  the  ''  apolo- 
gist" of  the  inquisition,  he  states  what  is  false.  I  did  not  say 
one  single  word  in  its  justification. 

He  had  stated,  that  Talleyrand  was  a  "  Jesuit,  and  had  been  a 
teacher"  in  this  country.  I  denied  the  assertion,  knowing  it  to 
be  unfounded.  In  a  postscript  to  his  corrected  speech,  he  says, 
**  There  is  proof  positive,  in  the  Idstory  of  Talleyrand,  that  he 
taught  mathematics  in  the  state  of  New  York.  There  is  proof 
in  his  character,  that  he  is  a  Jesuit. ^^     Now,  I  call  for  the 

PAGE  OF  THE  HISTORY  WHICH  ATTESTS  THE  FORMER  FACT.  AnI> 
I  CAUTION  THE  GENTLEMAN  NOT  TO  TRIFLE  WITH  HIS  REPUTATION 
FOR    VERACITY. 

The  Jesuits  are  known  to  every  man  of  education,  in  both 
hemispheres,  to  be  a  society  of  men  in  the  Catholic  Church,  the 
object  of  whose  institute  is  the  promotion  of  religion,  piety,  and 
learning.  That  there  may  have  been  bad  members  in  that  society, 
is  readily  admitted.  But,  as  a  body,  they  have  deserved  well  of 
religion,  of  science,  and  of  humanity.  This  I  have  proved  under 
the  former  head.  It  was  of  this  society, — and  in  this  sense,  that 
I  was  the  "  defender,"  although  I  am  not  a  member.  The  gen- 
tleman stated,  that  Talleyrand  was  a  "  Jesuit" — that  is,  as  honest 
m,en  would  understand,  a  member  of  this  society.  He  is  caught 
in  the  assertion ;  and,  instead  of  feeling  ashamed  at  its  want  of 
truth,  he  seems  to  smile  at  his  own  smartness,  in  effecting  a  dis- 
honourable retreat.  "  There  is  proof  in  his  (Talleyrand's)  cha- 
racter, that  he  was  a  Jesuit."  That  is,  "  all  scoundrels  are 
Jesuits  ;  and  Mr.  Hughes,  (who  attacked  the  Sunday  School 
Union,  and  apologized  for  the  Inquisition.)  is  the  advocate  of  the 
Jesuits."  In  this  sense,  there  are  Jesuits  of  all  denominations. 
And  the  man  who  is  willing  to  be  their  "  advocate,"  need  never  be 
at  a  loss  for  a  brief  and  a  client  among  the  Presbyterian  Jesuits 
of  the  country.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  tell  us  in  future  which 
kind  of  Jesuits  he  means. 

He  has  said,  that  Dr.  Brownlee  has  given  the  Catholics  occa- 
sion to  regret  that  "  ever  he  -vvas  born."  Now,  the  only  definite 
result  that  I  have  been  able  to  trace  to  the  doctor's  labours,  was 
the  public  statement  made  by  two  respectable  gentlemen  in  New 
York,  that  his  writings  had  induced  them  to  renounce  the  Pro- 
testant, and  embrace  the  Catholic  faith.     If  the  doctor  "  had  not 


369 

been  born,"  it  is  probable  that  these  persons  would  never  have 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth. 

The  gentleman  says  that  Mr.  Smith  is  "  now  despised."  It 
may  be,  but  Catholics  entertain  more  of  pity  than  contempt  for 
him.  As  to  his  being  "  esteemed"  when  he  was  a  "  priest,"  it 
may  be  true,  so  long  as  he  was  regarded  as  a  good  priest.  But 
when  they  came  to  know  him  better,  he  discovered,  1st,  that  he 
would  not  be  employed  in  the  ministry ;  and  then  he  discovered, 
2dly,  the  errors  of  popery.  On  the  15th  of  August,  1833,  he 
addressed  to  me  a  letter,  in  which  he  states : — "  If  I  am  not  con- 
sidered altogether  too  umvorthy,  I  wish,  like  the  prodigal  child, 
to  return  to  the  house  of  my  father.''^  "  That  I  am  still  worthy 
of  nothing  hut  stripes  I  am  fully  aware,  although  my  soul  is 
bleeding  under  the  bitter  lacerations  of  a  wounded  conscience.'''' 

"  /  congratulate  you  on  the  success  of  your  controversy 

with   Mr.  Breckinridge^ '■^ Here   I  drop  a  tear;   and, 

involuntarily  grasping  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  long  to  be  by 

your  side,  fighting  in  the  cause  of  truth." *'  May  I  be  so 

happy  as  to  be  one  of  your  number,'^  When  Mr.  Smith  wrote 
this  letter,  he  knew  of  "  priests"  and  "  nuns"  all  that  he  knows 
now.     His  experience  had  all  been  before. 

At  all  events  he  was  '*  considered  altogether  too  unworthy^^ 
to  exercise  the  priesthood;  and  the  consequence  was  that  he 
renounced  his  religion.  It  appears  he  was  bent  on  "fighting;" 
and,  since  he  would  not  be  permitted  to  fight  by  "  my  side  in  the 
cause  of  truth,"  he  determined,  unhappy  man,  to  fight  in  the 
cause  of  error.  He  is  now,  I  believe,  a  saint — having  broken  his 
vows,  abjured  his  faith,  and  published  the  Downfall  of  Babylon. 

As  to  the  gentleman's  "  challenges"  about  Catholic  principles 
in  relation  to  "  civil  and  religious  liberty,"  I  have  met  them  all 
under  their  head,  during  the  first  six  nights.  Then,  it  was  his 
right  to  "  challenge"  and  afiirm — and  my  duty  to  meet  his 
*'  challenges"  and  refute  his  assertions.  If  I  have  failed — let  the 
public  judge — let  the  facts  decide.  But  now,  by  the  gentleman's 
own  regulation,  I  have  a  right  to  enter  the  sanctuary  of  the  Pres- 
byterian religion.  I  have  a  right  to  take  it  down  from  its 
pedestal,  on  which  people  of  moderate  information  have  been 
accustomed  to  venerate  it,  as  the  "  beau  ideal"  of  all  that  is 
friendly  to  religious  and  civil  liberty,  and  to  lay  it  open  by  dis- 
section. All  this,  the  gentleman  has  given  me  a  right  to  do. 
Consequently,  my  business  during  these  six  nights,  is  to  lay 
before  the  public,  the  anatomy  of  Presbyterianism,  and  to  show 
that,  notwithstanding  its  long  and  sanctimonious  visage,  to  which 
its  advocates  point  with  such  confidence,  there  is  the  deadly  seed 
of  intolerance  and  persecution  in  every  joint  and  muscle  of  its 
whole  frame  and  structure.  Now,  the  gentleman  having  given 
me  the  right  to  do  all  this,  as  an  equivalent  for  his  privilege  to 
examine  the  Catholic  religion,  during  the  first  six  nights,  must 

47 


370 

not  expect  that  I  can  suspend  the  operation  to  refute  again,  what 
I  have  already  refuted. 

You  would  suppose,  from  the  tone  of  the  gentleman,  that  his 
religion  is  entitled  to  the  credit  of  all  that  is  liberal  in  the  genius 
of  the  civil  government  of  the  country.  "  We  protect  all  reli- 
gions." No,  sir,  the  Constitution  of  the  country  does  this.  All 
denominations  protect  all  denominations,  and  are  protected  by 
them.  The  protection  of  all  denominations  which  the  creed  of 
Presbyterians  furnishes,  is  the  commandment  of  Almighty  God 

to "to  oppose  all  false  worship,  and,  according  to  each 

one's  place  and  calling,  to  remove  it,  and  all  the  monuments  of 
idolatry. ^^  The  protection  of  the  Constitution  is  to  forbid  what 
Presbyterians  say  God  commands;  and  to  pi  event  their  "remov- 
ing of  any  false  worship,  or  any  monument  of  idolatry, ^^  except 
their  own. 

The  gentleman  finds  fault  with  me  for  not  giving  more  of 
Mr.  Jefferson,  Dr.  Ely,  &:c.  Where  should  I  fix  the  limits? 
Must  I  publish  their  whole  works,  in  order  to  make  a  quotation? 
I  shall  show,  in  the  sequel  of  the  argument,  the  gentleman  need 
not  go  out  of  the  annals  of  his  own  church  to  find  language  to 
express  cruelty,  not  in  the  "  abstraction^^  but  in  the  practice. 
The  name  of  its  founder,  Calvin,  conveys  the  idea  in  a  much 
more  concrete  form  than  the  word  inquisition. 

The  extract  from  the  continental  Congress  is  just  such  a  broad, 
sweeping,  but  unfounded  assertion,  as  the  gentleman  himself 
would  make,  during  a  violent  paroxysm  of  devotion  to  "  civil  and 
religious  liberty."  Protestants  who  have  not  taken  the  pains  to 
examine  the  facts,  have  been  much  accustomed  to  deal  in  such 
figures  of  rhetoric.  /  do  not  repeat  what  Catholics  said  of  Pres- 
byterians, to  show  their  doctrines  and  practice,  but  I  give  their 
actions,  when  and  where;  and  this,  too,  on  Protestant  authority. 
I  deem  it  no  disrespect  to  the  memory  of  that  Congress,  to  say, 
that,  with  all  their  patriotism,  and  magnanimity  of  character,  they 
were  unacquainted  with  the  principles  of  the  Catholic  religion, 
and  misinformed  as  to  the  matter  of  which  they  assert.  When 
they  assert  that  the  Catholic  religion  had  "  deluged  England  with 
blood,"  they  assert  what  history  does  not  sustain.  If  they  had 
spoken  thus  of  the  civil  wars  by  which  Presbyterianism  fought 
its  way  to  Westminster,  when  the  island  was  deluged  with  the 
blood  of  the  prince  and  the  peasant — then,  indeed,  history  would 
have  borne  them  out. 


371 


^Is  the  Presbyterian  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  7'eligious  liberty  ?^^ 


NEGATIVE  III.— MR.  BRECKINRIDGE. 

Mr.  President  ; — 

Whether,  if  the  question  of  a  mere  choice  of  "  an  equal  and  a 
companion"  were  before  me,  I  should  select  the  Rev.  priest  of  St. 
John's,  is  a  matter  which  I  do  not  feel  now  called  on  to  decide. 
I  am  glad,  however,  to  see  that  he  has  not  forgotten  the  name 
which  defines  a  well-bied  man.  His  presumption,  in  comparing 
himself  io  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  compliment,  in  resembling  me  to 
the  murderers  of  our  Master,  may  be  left  among  the  memorabilia 
which  need  no  comment. 

My  arguments  already  given,  are  enough,  without  repetition  or 
enlargement,  to  set  the  question  of  "  the  decrees"  in  its  proper 
light. 

He  unwittingly  answers  all  his  own  cavils,  on  the  subject,  when 
he  says,  "  According  to  this  it  was  '  fore-ordained'  that  John 

HUSS  SHOULD  BE  BURNED  AT  CoNSTANCE.  AnD  YET  THE  GENTLE- 
MAN CHARGES  THE  CouNciL  FOR  IT."  Evcn  SO.  This  shows,  in 
a  word,  "  that  the  gentleman  (Mr.  B.)  denies,  as  every  Presby- 
terian does,  ihd^i  fore-ordination  takes  away  accountability.  This 
is  the  very  distinction  that  we  make.  So  the  Lord  Jesus  said  to 
Pilate :  '  Thou  coiddst  have  no  power  at  all  against  me,  except 
it  were  given  thee  from  above ;  therefore  he  that  delivered  me 
unto  thee  hath  the  greater  sin.'  "  (1)  It  was  this  text  I  asked 
the  gentleman  to  explain ;  you  have  seen  his  reply ! 

In  Acts  ii.  23.  Peter  ("  the  first  Pope,'')  said :  "  Him  (Jesus) 
being  delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel,  and  forehiowledge  of 
God,  ye  have  taken,  and  by  wicked  hands  have  crucified  and 
slain."  Here  God  is  directly  called  the  decreeing  cause  ;  yet  the 
agents  are  called  the  "  wicked"  agents,  who  did  the  murderous 
deed.  And  again.  Acts  iv.  26-28.  "  The  kings  of  the  earth  stood 
up,  and  the  rulers  were  gathered  together,  against  the  Lord,  and 

against  his  Christ; for  to  do  whatsoever  thy  hand  and 

thy  counsel  determined  before  to  be  done."  Here  is  fore-ordina- 
tion by  God,  and  yet  guilt  charged  on  men  for  doing  what  God 
had  determined  before  was  to  be  done."     Now,  this  is  our  doc- 

(1)  John  xix.  ii. 


372 

fr'me.  Moral  agency  is  not  disturbed  by  divine  fore-ordination  ; 
or  will  the  gentleman  tell  us  ivhat  the  passages  mean?  if  not, 
what  I  attribute  to  them  ?  If  he  be  sihnt  after  this,  then  it  will 
be  owning  that  God's  word  teaches  a  doctrine  which  makes  God 
to  authorize  sin,  and  which  takes  away  the  guilt  of  all  actions; 
and  all  motives  to  good  actions.  So  he  says  of  this  doctrine  ! 
Now  let  him  speak  ! 

My  answer,  "  that  Augustine — ihe  Baptists,. and  Episcopalians,'* 
&:c.  held  this  doctrine,  was  in  reply  to  this  statement  in  his  pre- 
vious speech,  viz. :  "  The  only  denomination  that  I  know  who 
have  not  become  ashamed  of  the  avowal  of  this  article,  (predesti- 
nation,) are  the  high-toned  Presbyterians.  I  defy  the  proof  that 
it  is  held  by  the  other  denominations  whom  he  has  mentioned." 
I  had,  in  my  first  speech,  mentioned  "  the  Congregationalists  of 
old  and  New  England"  as  a  body,  "  the  gfeai  mass ;^^  and  the 
twelve  creeds  of  the  original  Refoimers — in  Germany,  Switzer- 
land, Holland,  France,  England,  and  Scotland,  as  "  Calvinistic,^^ 
as  well  as  "  Augustine,  the  Episcopalian  articles,  and  the  Baptist." 
As  he  denied  it,  so  I  brought  proof  Now,  he  ''lets  go^^  about 
half  of  the  whole  number,  and  denies  that  "  Augustine,  Episcopa- 
lians," and  all  the  Baptists,  hold  it.  He  is  in  the  face  of  a  mass 
of  Catholic  evidence,  if  he  deny  that  Augustine  held  this  doctrine; 
and  now,  if  he  will  only  venture  to  deny  it,  like  a  man,  and  in 
plain  words,  I  will  expose  him  before  all  the  world.  He  admits 
that  the  Episcopal  articles  are  Calvinistic.  I  have  to  do  with 
no  more.  But  surely,  when  he  says  the  "  clergy  are  Arminian,^^ 
he  pays  them  no  enviable  compliment.  He  says  profoundly, 
*'  with  the  exception  of  those  ccdled  Calvinistic  Baptists,'*''  the 
Baptists  are  not  Calvinists!  But  who  are  Calvinistic  Baptists. 
I  refer  to  history  in  England  and  America,  in  proof  that  the  great 
body  are  Calvinistic  ;  though  I  must  own  that  those  who  are  not 
Caloinistic,  are  not!  In  reply  to  all  I  said  (including  a  passage 
from  the  decrees)  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  he  remarks,  "  as  to  the 
Council  of  Trent,  it  taught  no  such  impious  tenet."  This  is  sum- 
mary, though  it  may  not  be  very  conclusive  reasoning.  The 
point  of  my  argument  was  to  show,  that  the  freest,  wisest,  most 
virtuous,  and  most  flourishing  nations  on  earth,  have  been  distin- 
guished by  "  Calvinistic"  doctrines  ;  and  that  the  Council  of  Trent 
contradicted  itself,  being  divided  on  the  doctrine,  in  trying  to  re- 
concile parties. 

Foiled  on  this  topic,  the  gentleman  returns,  for  the  twelfth  time, 
(I  think,)  to  "  the  monuments  of  idolatry.''^  He  says,  as  the 
magistrate  is  by  our  Confession  bound  to  remove  "  all  the  monu- 
ments of  idolatry ;"  and  as,  by  the  same  Confession,  "  those  only 
belong  to  the  true  Church,  who  profess  the  true  religion" — there- 
fore, it  is  absurd  to  say,  that  they  ought  to  ^^  protect  all  religions," 
I  grant  it  is  so,  "  on  Catholic  principles ;"  which  are,  that  ^'heretics 
art  to  be  exterminated^     But  while  we  hold,  that  *'Outof  the 


373 

universal  Church  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation," 
we  also  hold,  that  "  civil  governments^  is  not  to  protect  only  the 
true  Church,  but  all  churches — even  congregations  of  infidels  in 
Tammany  Hall,  if  they  commit  no  civil  offence.  But  the  Catho- 
lic '*  church  and  state  doctrine"  interwoven  in  his  argument,  as 
now  stated,  makes  protection  stop  where  heresy  begins.  Again : 
we  hold,  that  not  only  Presbyterians,  but  "  all,  everywhere,  who 
love  the  Lord,"  are  of  Christ's  Church  ;  and  so  wide  is  this  prin- 
ciple, that  we  believe  a  part  of  the  true  Church  lay  hid,  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  at  the  occurrence  of  the  Reformation. 

He  next  remarks,  as  if  it  were  a  new  and  extraordinary  thing, 
that  "  he  (Mr.  B.)  confines  himself  within  that  portion  of  history 
and  geography  in  which  it  was  impossible  to  practise  the  doctrine 
of  his  Church,  and  unpopular  to  profess  it.^^  Here  the  gentle- 
man admits  impliedly,  the  terms  of  our  discussion.  It  was  "  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  in  connexion  with  the  General  Assembly 
in  the  United  States,''  mid  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  that  Churchy 
which  were  by  the  rules,  (for  which,  to  help  the  short  memory  of 
the  gentleman,  I  appeal  to  the  records  of  the-  Society,)  defined,  for 
his  attack,  and  my  defence.  Early  in  this  debate  I  distinctly  de- 
clared, that  I  considered  our  fathers  in  Europe  mistaken  in  some 
of  their  views  of  "religious  liberty;"  and  that,  at  this  day,  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  Scotland,  like  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
England,  was  most  seriously  wrong,  in  permitting,  and,  still 
more,  in  cherishing  an  union  with  the  state :  that  American  Pres- 
byterians, like  American  Episcopalians,  had  renounced  this  sys- 
tem, as  contrary  to  liberty  and  the  word  of  God.  The  gentleman 
said  it  was  forced  on  us  by  the  American  Revolution.  I  showed 
that  the  alteration  in  our  Church  preceded  the  Revolution  of  the 
United  States.  But  force,  or  no  force,  here  is  the  change.  In 
this  respect,  the  American  system  differs  wholly  from  the  Euro- 
pean system.  Now,  we  call  on  the  American  Catholics,  to  make 
the  same  change.  They  pre-eminently,  and  originally,  held  to 
the  duty  and  necessity  of  an  union  of  church  and  state ;  and  at 
Rome  this  union  is  such,  that  the  Pope  refused  to  tolerate  any 
other  religion,  (when  even  Napoleon  proposed  it,)  saying,  it  was 

CONTRARY  TO  THE  CaTHOLIC  RELIGION  TO  ALTER  THE  CIVIL  CON- 
STITUTION, BY  WHICH    THE  CaTHOLIC    RELIGION    WAS   EXCLUSIVELY 

RECOGNIZED  (in  the  papal  states). 

Now,  in  those  very  states,  above  all  others,  the  Pope  had  the 
power  to  alter  this  clause!  But  he  says  "  it  is  contrary  to  the 
Catholic  religion  to  do  it;'^  and  refused.  It  is  clear,  then, 
that  in  Rome  "  religious  liberty  is  contrary  to  the  Catholic 
religion.''  Now,  the  Catholic  religion  is  unchangeable,  (says 
Mr.  Hughes)  and  is  one  and  the  same  every  where.  In  Ame- 
rica, then,  "  religious  liberty,"  or,  what  is  the  same,  the  protec- 
tion equally  of  all  religions,  is  contrary  to  the  Catholic  religion. 
Here,  then,  is  the  diflference.     The  American  Presbyterian  reli- 


374 

gion  has  rejected  this  vile,  and  barbarous,  and  anti-apostolical 
principle.  So  has  the  American  Episcopal  Church.  The  gen- 
tleman goes  to  Europe  to  find  proof  that  ive  in  America,  as  Pres- 
byterians, oppose  liberty.  We  point  him  to  the  change.  But 
his  Church,  he  says,  cannot  change.  Then,  till  it  can,  and  will, 
and  does,  the  American  people  will  and  must  believe  that  it  is  a 
persecuting  church;  and,  it  is  as  fair  to  go  for  proof  of  this  to 
Europe,  and  especially  to  Rome,  and  the  Pope,  as  it  is  for 
Mr.  Hughes  to  go  there  for  his  creed  and  ordination,  and  right 
to  administer  the  "  sacraments.''^  To  settle  this  question,  I  will 
record  this  inquiry: — "  Does  Mr.  Hughes  think  it  consistent 
WITH  THE  Catholic  religion  to  establish  it  by  law,  as  the 
exclusive  religion  of  the  Papal  states?"  Now,  I  will 
nail  this  inquiry  up  at  the  ported  of  the  debate,  till  he  gives  a 
direct  reply.  Whenever  he  shall  do  so,  I  promise  you,  gentle- 
men, to  settle  this  question — by  his  own  showing.  Till  he  does, 
you  will  know  the  reason  of  his  silence. 

The  above  statement  disposes  entirely  of  all  his  citations  from 
*'  Mr.  Houston,''^  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  Ireland. 
And  so  far  as  these  citations  are  honestly  made,  we  cordially  join 
with  the  gentleman  in  saying  that  every  Presbyterian  act,  as  well 
as  every  papal  which  went  to  apply  force,  and  use  the  civil 
power  in  aid  of  religion,  was  contrary  to  the  rights  of  men 
and  the  word  of  God.  Popery  began  persecution  in  Scotland. 
Cardinal  Beaton,  of  bloody  memory,  burned  men  at  the  stake 
before  Presbyterians  had  the  power  to  resist.  Episcopalians, 
afterwards,  in  a  way  full  of  horror  and  fierce  crime,  persecuted 
Presbyterians ;  and  Presbyterians  persecuted,  also,  in  their  turn, 
and  often  with  a  high  hand.  For  these  things  American  Episco- 
palians and  Presbyterians  condemn  their  ancestors.  But  popery 
is  the  same.  It  cannot  change.  The  butcher,  Beaton,  is  a  saint 
and  martyr. 

The  gentleman,  y^\\h  poetical  license,  makes  me  to  say,  "  I  am 
not  answerable  for  Dr.  Miller.''''  This  is  only  directly /a/se/ 
He  says  the  "  only  one  whom  he  has  not  disowned  is  Dr.  Brown- 
/ee."  This  also  is  false.  I  commended  Dr.  Brownlee.  The 
discomfited  priests  of  New  York  praise  him  still  more.  "  His 
works  praise  him."  Hence  the  gall  of  the  gentleman's  attack. 
But  I  still  reverence  Dr.  Wylie — as  a  learned  divine,  who,  in 
all  other  respects,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  a  sound  Presbyterian,  as 
well  as  an  able  and  good  man.  The  views  of  his  communion  on 
the  subject  of  the  American  Constitution  differ  much  from  ours. 
But  if  his  assailant  would  read  "  the  Original  Draft  of  a  Pastoral 
Address,  from  the  Eastern  Subordinate  Synod  of  the  Reformed 
Presbyterian  Synod,'''  he  might  learn  a  little  of  the  doctor's  real 
doctrine ;  and  spare  the  ignoble  exhibitions  of  his  own  dishonour- 
able attacks,  under  the  guise  of  professed  respect. 

The  gentleman  says  of  me,  "  The  whole  and  only  defence  that 


375 

the  gentleman  can  make,  is,  that  he  does  not  hold  these  doctrines.*^ 
I  defy  him  to  produce  such  a  defence,  from  all  that  I  have  said. 
He  adds,  "  Of  what  importance  is  he  in  the  question?^'  True — 
or  Mr.  Hughes?  Let  us  remember  this — when  with  a  word  he 
dismisses  a  pope,  a  canon,  or  a  decree.  I  go  to  our  standards 
for  defence;  he  to  his — never;  save  to  vitiate,  deny,  or  becloud 
them. 

In  his  long  citations  from  acts  of  English  and  Scotch  Assem- 
blies, he  has  found  it  necessary  to  save  his  own  character,  by 
throwing  in  here  and  there  a  saving  clause,  wherever  any  perse- 
cution is  found;  as,  for  example,  in  presenting  you  the  Scotch 
Article  of  the  Confession  corresponding  to  our  Art.  4,  Chap.  XX. 
he  says,  *'  The  words  in  parenthesis  are  omitted  in  the  present 
republican  edition.  TJiese  words  are,  (and  by  the  power  of 
THE  CIVIL  magistrate)  ;  and  this  is  the  only  persecuting  part. 
In  a  word,  he  shows  what  is  not  in  our  standards;  and  chafes 
himself,  not  a  little,  that  it  is  wanting.  In  another  place  he  has 
the  audacity  to  insert  a  long  passage  from  the  same  foreign 
standards,  and  affix  it  to  our  Confession,{\)  and  then  to  add, 
"  The  words  in  parenthesis  are  omitted  since  the  revolution; 
and  the  very  ambiguous  phrase,  appointing  the  magistrates  of 
the  country  to  be  ^  7iur sing  fathers  to  the  church,^  substituted." 
That  is,  the  persecuting  part  Mr.  Hughes  regrets  to  find  is  not  in 
the  "  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States.''^  Here  again  he  clears  us,  by  his  own  imper- 
tinent exposition.  This  is  only  not  forgery.  He  then  says : — 
*'  Let  us  see  whether  this  was  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian 
Churches  on  the  continent  of  Europe ;^^  and,  travelling  out  of 
the  record  at  the  first  step,  quotes  from  Turretine  and  the  Hel- 
vetic Confession. 

Still  there  is  no  proof  of  the  opposition  of  our  doctrines  to  civil 
and  religious  liberty;  for  he  has,  at  the  close  of  these  long 
extracts,  still  to  own  that  they  are  not  ours;  and,  therefore, 
though  they  help  him  to  wend  his  weary  way  through  the  appoint- 
ed half  hour,  they  only  show  what  our  doctrines  are  not.  They 
do  serve  one  other  purpose.  They  show  that,  from  the  days  when 
popery  fastened  its  yoke  on  the  necks  of  the  race,  until  the 
asylum  of  liberty  was  opened  by  Heaven,  in  a  new  world,  that 
all  Christendom  had  been  more  or  less  astray  on  "  the  rights  of 
conscience  ;^^  and  the  relations  of  the  church  to  the  state.  In 
these  errors  Roman  Catholics  led  the  way  with  supreme  domi- 
nion. The  reformers,  rejecting  the  chief  part  of  their  persecuting 
principles,  retained  some  of  them,  in  a  milder  form,  but  still, 
retatined  a  portion.  Episcopalians  in  England,  and  Presbyte- 
rians in  Scotland,  retain  establishments  to  this  day.  Popery 
remains  the  same  every  where,  unchangeable  and  unchanged — 

(1)  Art.  3,  Chap,  XXIII. 


376 

till  God  shall  destroy  it  with  the  brightness  of  his  coming. 
In  America,  Presbyterians  and  Episcopalians,  &c.  have  wholly 
renounced  all  appearance  of  the  old  leaven.  Mr.  Hughes  says 
we  are  dishonest.  We  condemn  the  errors  of  our  fathers,  while 
we  own  them  errors.  Mr.  Hughes  says  we  are  dishonest  still. 
Very  well.  We  know  he  regiets  that  we  are  not  in  the  same 
condemnation  with  him,  and  his  system.  If  he  will  honestly 
shiure  papal  persecutions,  we  will  then  cease  to  charge  him  with 
the  system  of  tyranny,  which  riots  through  his  standards,  and 
reigns  wherever  it  dare,  and  where  it  can.  Till  then,  American 
citizens  must  watch  these  emissaries  of  the  Pope ;  and  expose 
their  anti-American,  anti-social,  anti-Christian  discipline,  doctrine, 
and  morals. 

The  gentleman,  in  a  late  speech,  made  a  most  flourishing  exhi- 
bition of  Bishop  England,  as  the  representative  of  our  country  in 
the  eternal  city,  and  as  puzzled  to  defend  our  natio7ial churaciev,  after 
the  news  reached  Rome,  of  the  burning  of  the  convent.  This  is 
surely  a  most  unfortunate  allusion.  It  is  not  a  long  time  since  that 
man  wrote  to  his  Irish  friends,  one  of  the  most  barefaced  letters, 
against  the  American  system  of  religious  liberty,  that  was  ever 
penned.  I  give  below  an  extract  from  his  patriotic  opinions.  It 
was  published  in  a  Charleston  (S.  C)  paper  ;  and  the  Bishop  was 
at  hand  to  deny  oi  to  explain,  had  that  been  possible.  It  is  as 
follows : 

**  How  often  did  I  wish  my  voice  could  be  heard  across  the 
deep,  proclaiming  to  your  meetings  what  I  have  seen  and  heard 
since  I  left  you  !  A  people  valuing  freedom, — and  in  the  pleni- 
tude of  its  enjoyment — destroying  religion — nay,  having  nearly 
effected  its  destruction  by  reducing  to  practice  here,  the  principle 
which  the  Vetoists  and  Conciliators  contend  for  amongst  you. 

**  The  Americans  are  loud  in  their  reprobation  of  your  servile 
aristocracy,  who  would  degrade  religion  by  placing  its  concerns 
under  the  control  of  a  Kin g^ s  minister;  and  could  your  aristo- 
crats and  place-hunters  view  the  state  of  Catholicity  here,  they 
would  inveigh  against  the  democrats,  who  would  degrade  reli- 
gion by  placing  its  concerns  under  the  control  of  a  mob,  and  I 
am  perfectly  convinced  both  are  right.  In  both  cases  the  princi- 
ple is  exactly  the  same — the  mode  of  carrying  it  into  operation 
is  different. 

"  I  am  convinced  that  if  those  gentlemen  of  the  Irish  hierarchy 
who  are  suspected,  and  I  fear  with  good  reason,  of  being  favoura- 
ble to  vetoistical  arrangements,  had  each  one  month's  experience 
of  the  operation  of  the  principle  here,  their  good  sense,  and  piety, 
and  zeal  for  religion,  would  compel  them  to  suffer  inconveniejice, 
rather  thaii  commit  the  fate  of  the  religion  of  millions  under  their 
charge,  and  myriads  yet  unborn  to  the  influence  of  a  most  de- 
structive principle,  to  release  themselves  and  their  flocks  from  the 
mitigated  persecution  under  which  they  still  suffer. 


377 

*'  y/ie  people  here,  claim,  and  endeavour  to  assume,  the  same 
power  which  the  clauses  and  conditions  would  give  to  the  Crown 
amongst  you — though  not  to  the  same  extent.  The  consequence 
is,  that  religion  is  neglected,  degraded,  despised,  and  insulted 
with  impunity.'" 

Now  if  the  Bishop  is  an  American  in  heart,  he  has  become  so 
very  lately.  The  above,  is  the  boldest  and  basest  attack  I  have 
ever  seen,  on  our  free  institutions,  from  any  pen,  save  those  of 
George  Thompson  and  Daniel  O'Connell.  The  American  peo- 
ple will  be  not  a  little  disgusted  to  hear,  in  contrast  with  the  above 
extracts.  Bishop  England's  adulation  of  the  religious  statesmen 
at  Rome.  While  in  Rome,  in  his  late  visit,  he  actually  wrote  a 
book  on  the  ''furniture,  8fc.  of  a  church,  vestments  of  the  clergy,'''' 
&c.  &c.,  which  he  dedicated  to  "  His  eminence  Cardinal  Weld," 
&c.  &c.,  ''my  Lord  CardinaW^  Sic.  He  tells  him  "that  the 
grain  of  mustard  seed,  (the  papal  church  in  America,)  cultivated 
with  success,  under  the  auspices  of  Pius  VI.,  has  rapidly  grown 
to  a  mighty  tree,  and  protected  by  Gregory  XVI.  is  now  extend- 
ing its  branches  above  an  enlightened  community,  reposing  in 
peace  under  its  shadow.  He  adds  (in  the  dedication  to  a  second 
work  bound  in  the  same  volume,  "  On  the  Ceremonies  of  the  Holy 
Week.'''')  "In  the  venerable  successor  of  St.  Peter,  \  behold  the 
former,  active,  zealous,  and  enlightened  prefect  of  the  Propagan- 
da, whose  DEEP  INTEREST,  and  LABORIOUS  EXERTIONS  in  THE  CON- 
CERNS OF  THE  Church  of  the  United  States,  have  been  so 
BENEFICIAL."  He  calls  the  company  of  the  Cardinals  "the 
venerable  and  eminent  Senate  of  the  Christian  world  ;'* 
piaises  the  Pope  for  that  very  effort  against  "  liberty,"  which 
breathes  through  the  detestable  "  Encyclical  Letter''''  so  repeatedly 
alluded  to  in  the  Controversy,  (that  letter  was  published  Aug.  15th 
1833,  and  the  Bishop's  book  appeared  at  Rome,  March  26,  1833,) 
and  he  says,  "  that  stripping  the  Holy  See  of  its  temporal  inde- 
pendence, would  inflict  a  deep  wound  on  religion.''  Yet  Mr. 
Hughes  says,  the  temporal  prince  has  no  relation  to  the  Ecclesi- 
astical Head  of  the  Church.  In  a  word,  this  prelate  by  his  pub- 
lic defence  of  ministerial  dissipations,  by  his  unworthy  and  anti- 
republican  sycophancy  at  Rome  ;  and  by  his  direct  attacks  on  the 
institutions  of  his  country,  not  to  name  his  open  defence  of  the 
Inquisition,  has  disgraced  his  prelacy,  and  sundered  every  tie  that 
could  constitute  or  continue  him  an  American. 

But  this  spirit  is  not  peculiar  to  him.  A  papal  journal  in  our 
country,  holds  the  following  language.  (It  is  from  the  "  Catholic 
Telegraph,"  Cincinnati,  and  was  called  out  by  the  trials  at  Boston, 
in  relation  to  the  burning  of  the  Convent.) 

"A  system  of  government,  which  admits  a  feeling  of  alarm  in 
the  execution  of  the  laws,  from  the  vengeance  of  the  mob,  which 
Mr.  Austin  (the  prosecuting  attorney,)  distinctly  allowed  to  be 
the  case,  a  vengeance  exhibited  by  letters  to  the  public  officers, 

48 


378 

and  threats  to  the  public  authorities,  may  he  very  fine  in  theory ^ 
very  fit  for  imitation  on  the  part  of  those  who  seek  the  power  of 
the  mob,  in  contradistinction  to  justice,  and  the  public  interest. 
But  it  is  not  of  a  nature  to  invite  the  reflecting  part  of  the  world, 
and  shows  at  least  that  it  has  evils.  A  public  officer  in  Eng- 
land, who  would  publicly  avow  such  a  fear  of  executing  his<\ 
duty,  and  carrying  into  effect  the  law  of  the  realm,  ought  and 
would  be  thrust  out  of  the  office,  by  public  opinion.     This  one 

FACT  IS  condemnation  OF  THE  SYSTEM  OF  AMERICAN  INSTITUTIONS, 
CONFIRMED  LATELY  BY    NUMEROUS    OTHER    PROOFS."       That    is,  OUT 

institutions  are  a  failure,  because  a  mob  burned  a  Convent ;  and 
the  Court  did  not  find  a  bill  for  the  Catholics,  as  strong  as  was  ex- 
pected. *'  Therefore  our  institutions  are  to  be  denounced  as 
worthy  of  imitation  only,  by  those  who  seek  power  of  the  mob.^^ 
Such  is  the  audacity  of /bre^^^^  emissaries  ^  renegado- Jesuits,  the 
bondsmen  of  the  Pope,  who  come  here  to  corrupt  and  to  traduce 
the  country.  In  substance,  Mr.  Hughes  has  told  us,  that  our  na- 
tion is  disgraced  by  that  conflagration.  These  haughty  bondsmen 
of  a  foreign  despot,  the  Pope,  seem  to  think  indeed,  that  this 
world  was  made  for  them,  and  their  master ;  and  that  we  are 
honoured  by  holding  their  sacred  persons  in  the  land  ;  or  even  by 
being  noticed  by  their  lordly  anathemas. 

But  Bishop  England  is  not  alone  in  denouncing  our  "  demo- 
cracy," and  RESPONSIBILITY  TO  THE  PEOPLE,  AS  THE  GREAT  PRIN- 
CIPLE OF  THE  American  system.  "  My  Lord  Bishop  Flaget,  of 
Bardstown,  Kentucky,  (says  the  admirable  Brutus,)  in  a  letter  to 
his  patrons  abroad,  has  this  plain  hint  at  ulterior  political  de- 
sign ;  and  that  no  less  than  the  entire  subversion  of  our  republi- 
can government.''^  Speaking  of  the  difficulties,  and  discourage- 
ments, the  Catholic  missionaries  have  to  contend  with,  in  con- 
verting the  Indians,  the  last  difficulty  in  their  way,  he  says,  is 
*'  their  continual  traffic  among  the  whites,  which  cannot  be  hin- 
dered, AS  LONG  AS  THE  REPUBLICAN  GOVERNMENT  SHALL  SUBSIST." 

This  intimation  of  the  bishop  is  extracted  from  "  Annales  de 
I'Association,  de  la  Propagation  de  la  Foi,"  being  a  periodical 
continuation  of  the  "  Lettres  Edifiantes^^  a  Lyons,  et  a  Paris, 
1829.  As  to  the  case  of  the  "  knocking  off  of  the  hat  at  the 
bishop^s  approach,''''  no  doubt  the  Rev.  Mr.  Mason  believed  it. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  there  were  divers  affirmations,  not  on 
Presbyterian  authority  merely,  that  something  of  the  kind  ac- 
tually did  occur;  and,  secondly,  it  is  notorious,  that  in  every  Ca- 
tholic country  on  earth,  the  man  ivho  does  not  kneel  in  the 
street,  as  the  host  passes,  will  lose  not  only  his  hat,  but  perhaps 
his  head  also  ;  for  these  holy  processions,  paying  idolatrous  wor- 
ship to  a  piece  of  bread,  are  accompanied  by  armed  men,  to  force 
adoration  from  every  spectator ;  and  wo  to  the  hapless  "here- 
tic" who  cannot  escape  through  the  crowd,  and  will  not  bow 
down  and  worship  the  idol.     Even  a  little  credulity,  therefore, 


379 

(supposing  the  whole  story  false,  into  which,  however,  I  intend 
to  inquire,)  may  be  pardoned,  when  we  know,  that  Catholics  do 
the  very  thing  charged  on  them  in  Rome,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  all 
the  papal  states  and  islands  of  the  American  hemisphere. 

Bishop  England  says,  (i)  "  «//  who  are  not  in  the  procession, 
as  the  Pope  passes — kneeW''  The  Pope,  having  worshipped  "  the 
hidden  God,^^  as  the  bishop  profanely  calls  the  consecrated 
wafer — takes  the  vessel  containing  it,  and  bareheaded,  with  in- 
cense burning  before  him,  leads  on  the  procession.  He  says, 
"  Nothing  is  more  offensive  to  Catholics,  than  a  transgres- 
sion of  the  principle  here  alluded  to  f  viz.,  "  to  kneel  as  the  pro- 
cessiofi  passes,  in  a  decorous,  external  conformity. ^^ 

I  have  seen  many  persons  from  the  West  Indies,  South  Ame- 
rica, Spain,  and  Rome,  who  confirm  the  above  statements  about 
being  forced  to  kneel  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  or  else  precipi- 
tately retreat  before  the  approach  of  the  procession. 

It  has  been  a  frequent  argument  of  the  gentleman  during  this 
discussion,  that  the  principles  of  Presbyterians  led  to  licentious- 
ness. Especially  has  he  been  loud  in  thus  charging  the  doc- 
trine of  election.  It  did  not  suffice  him,  that  the  Apostle  Paul, 
eighteen  centuries  ago,  met  and  answered  this  heathen  objection, 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Church  of  Rome. 

'*  What  shall  we  say  then?  Shall  we  continue  in  sin,  that 
grace  may  abound?  God  forbid.  How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to 
sin,  live  any  longer  therein?"  (2)  "For  sin  shall  not  have  do- 
minion over  you  ;  for  ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  giace. 
What  then?  Shall  we  sin,  because  we  are  not  under  the  law, 
but  under  grace?  God  forbid.  God  be  thanked  ye  were  the  ser- 
vants of  sin ;  but  ye  have  obeyed  from  the  heart,  that  form  of  doc- 
trine which  was  delivered  you.  Being  then  made  free  from  sin, 
ye  became  the  servants  of  righteousness."  (Verses  14,  15,  17, 
18.)  *'  Whom  He  did  foreknow,  He  also  did  predestinate  to  be 
coriformed  to  the  image  of  his  son.""  (Rom.  viii.  29.)  But  Paul's 
testimony  did  not  suffice.  The  gentleman,  in  a  written  paper, 
thrown  in  during  the  discussion,  thus  said: — 

"  Consequently,  as  individuals,  they  (Presbyterians)  may  pay 
their  debts  by  an  act  of  the  legislature,  and  live  in  affluence  af- 
terwards. They  rnay  give  to  Bible  Societies,  Tract  Societies, 
Sunday  School  Union,  and  Missionary  Societies,  what  belongs 
to  their  creditors,  and  yet  eat  ivell,  dress  well,  sleep  well,  and 
feel  no  remorse,'^  And,  again;  "  The  same  motives  of  selfish- 
ness, that  govern  individuals,  govern  also,  more  or  less,  all 

sects   and  denominations , The   doctrine   of 

Presbyterianism  authorizes  the  remorseless  violation  of  the 
principles  of  justice,  honesty,  truth ;  and  permits  that  sect  to 
establish  its  own  ascendancy  over  other  sects,  on  their  ruins. 

(1)  Page  64,  Ceremonies  of  the  Holy  Week.         (3)  Chap.  VI.  v.  1—2. 


380 

And  when  they  shall  have  done  so,  though  your  property,  and 
reputation,  and  liberty  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates 
•of  your  conscience,  should  fall  a  sacrifice  to  their  arts,  or  secta- 
rian ambition,  still  they  will  feel  no  remorse.''''  These  are,  in- 
deed, heavy  charges — not  only  against  Presbyterians,  but  against 
all  God's  people,  who  hold  the  same  views,  and  (I  tremble  while 
I  say  it)  against  the  word  of  God.  For  these  ungodly  slanders, 
£  need  not  say,  he  brings  not  a  solitary  proof.  There  are  but 
three  methods  of  proof  possible  in  the  case. 

1.  He  might  refer  directly  to  the  word  of  God.  His  word, 
even  Mr.  Hughes  will  allow,  contains  no  doctrine  opposed  to 
good  morals,  and  the  ivell-being  of  society.  Then,  are  these 
Presbyterian  doctrines  contained  in  the  Bible?  This  question, 
however,  the  gentleman  dare  not  touch.  A  Papist  has  no  liberty 
to  reason  on  this  subject.  If  you  convince  him,  he  is  yet  not 
convinced.  His  rule  of  faith  forbids  him  to  think  for  himself; 
and  if  he  should  venture  to  reason,  he  is  guilty  of  this  absurdity, 
that  though  neither  reason,  nor  the  Bible,  nor  any  thing  else, 
but  "  his  infallible  judge  of  controversies''''  is  capable  of  convinc- 
ing HIM ;  yet,  he  expects  others  to  be  open  to  reason,  and  to  be 
led  by  private  interpretation,  though  he  will  not.  The  Papist 
declares,  at  the  outset,  that  he  is  incapable  of  being  convinced; 
and  rejects  those  very  means  which  he  tries  to  use  in  convincing 
others.  He  is,  therefore,  insincere  at  every  step,  and  cannot 
honestly  reason  on  the  subject;  or,  if  honest,  absurdly  incon- 
sistent. 

2.  The  next  method  of  proof,  is  an  appeal  to  the  whole  Pres- 
byterian system.  What  does  it  say?  Does  it  not,  at  large,  in 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  (I)  most  abundantly  and  explicitly  de- 
clare, that  without  holiness,  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord;  that  re- 
pentance, regeneration,  good  works,  and  growth  in  these,  and 
perseverance  in  them  till  death,  is  the  end  and  effect  of  the  de- 
crees of  God;  that  love  to  God,  and  love  to  man,  are  binding  on 
all,  and  that  none  are,  or  can  be,  saved  without  it.  It  is  true,  we 
do  not  think  with  Papists,  that  there  is  any  saving  merit  in  good 
ivorks,  and  we  prefer  to  let  God  elect  ;  they  prefer  the  Pope  to 
do  it;  and  say,  that  none  can  be  saved,  who  reject  their  faith, 
and  are  not  subject  to  their  Pope.  We  prefer  to  let  God  fix  the 
terms  of  salvation;  and  believe,  as  he  hath  said,  '^that  whosoever 
shall  call  on  the  naine  of  the  Lord,  shall  be  saved,^^  even  if  it  be 
from  the  bosom  of  the  fallen  Church  of  Rome. 

But  the  gentleman  says  we  have  a  "  hidden  sense^^  in  our 
standards,  differing  from  our  avowed  principles.  But  "  secreta 
monitd'^  belong  to  him   and  his  Jesuit  brethren !     And  it  was 

(1)  Chap.  III.,  section  3;  Chap.  X.,  Chap.  XII.;  XIII.  Of  Sanctification  ; 
Chap.  XIV.,  Chap.  XV.  Of  Repentance  unto  Life  ;  XVI.  Of  Good  Works, 
to  name  no  more. 


381 

*^from  our  standards^^  that  he  pledged  himself  to  prove  our  op- 
position to  liberty.  Here  they  are.  No  torture  can  make  them 
prove  that  our  doctrines  advocate  or  sustain  licentiousness,  dis- 
honesty, &c.,  &c.  You  see,  gentlemen,  how  utterly  he  has 
failed ;  and  you  must  be  struck  (by  contrast)  with  the  abundant 
testimony  produced  on  the  other  side. 

3.  The  other,  and  only  other  conceivable  method  of  proof  is 
from  facts.  And  here  I  have  called  in  vain  for  proof,  that  "  our 
doctrine  authorizes  the  remorseless  violation  of  justice,  holiness, 
and  truth.'^  Where  has  he  laid  his  hand  on  one  fact,  or  one  page 
of  history  to  prove  it  ?  I  know  we  are  at  best  unworthy;  and 
that,  compared  with  God^s  holy  standard,  we  come  very  far 
short.  But,  compared  with  other  denominations  of  our  brethren, 
above  all,  comparing  Presbyteriayi  with  papcd  countries — or  Pres- 
byterian with  papal  clergy — or  Presbyterian  with  papal  laity, 
who  will  venture  to  say  that  papal  doctrines  have  produced  better, 
or  as  good  effects  on  the  public,  or  on  the  personal  character  and 
morals,  as  Presbyterian  ?  The  gentleman  himself  has  not  ven- 
tured to  say  it,  much  less  to  attempt  the  proof  of  it. 

Now,  I  admit,  that  any  system  of  doctrine,  which  necessarily 
leads  to  licentiousness,  or  that  habitually  produces,  or  even  per- 
mits, and  connives  at  the  sins  charged  on  us  by  the  gentleman,  is 
false,  wicked,  offensive  to  God,  contrary  to  the  Bible,  and  destruc- 
tive of  society,  as  well  as  of  the  souls  of  men.  I  join  issue  with 
the  gentleman  on  this  ground,  and  am  willing  by  it  to  stand  or 
fall.  Perhaps  he  may  say  my  opinion  of  Calvinism  is  partial.  I 
own  I  love  if.  But  we  adduced  Swift,  (Episcopalian,)  Dryden, 
{Papist,)  Bancroft,  [Unitarian,)  testifying  to  its  direct  and  mighty 
influence  in  promoting  liberty.  The  gentleman  passed  by  Dry- 
den, and  charged  the  rest  with  partiality.  But  we  will  add  other 
witnesses.  Bishop  Burnet  (does  the  gentleman  know  him?  he 
was  a  moderate  Arminian,}  says, — "  A  Calvinist  is  taught,  by 
his  opinions,  to  think  meanly  of  himself  ,  [how  unlike  the  picture 
drawn  by  Mr.  Hughes  !]  and  to  ascribe  the  honour  of  all  to  God; 
which  lays  in  him  a  deep  foundation  for  humility:  he  is  also 
much  inclined  to  secret  prayer,  and  to  a  fixed  dependence  on 
God." 

The  article  Predestination,  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica, 
said  to  be  written  by  an  able  foreign  lawyer,  tells  us, — "  There  is 
one  remark  which  we  feel  ourselves  bound  in  justice  to  make,  al- 
though it  appears  to  us  somewhat  singular.  It  is  this:  that 
from  the  earliest  ages  down  to  our  own  days,  if  we  consider  the 
character  of  the  ancient  stoics,  the  Jewish  Essenes,  the  modern 
Calvinists  and  Jansenists,  when  compared  with  that  of  their  an- 
tagonists, the  Epicureans,  the  Sadducees,  the  Arminians,  and  the 
Jesuits,  we  shall  find  that  they  have  excelled,  in  no  small  degree, 
in  the  practice  of  the  most  rigid  and  respectable  virtues )  and 
have  been  the  highest  honour  of  their  own  ages,  and  the  best 


382 

models  for  imitation  for  every  succeeding  age.'''  This  surely  is 
no  measured  praise ;  and  yet,  that  it  is  from  one  who  was  no 
Calvinist,  appears,  not  only  from  the  above  remark  on  "  the  sin- 
gularity'^ o(  the  fact,  stated  by  him,  but  still  more,  from  the  fol- 
lowing sentence.  "  At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  confessed  that 
their  virtues  have  in  general  been  rendered  unamiable,  by  a  tinge 
of  gloomy  and  severe  austerity.'' 

Finally.  "  In  Letters  addressed  to  a  Serious  and  Humhle  In- 
quirer," &c.,  by  the  Rev.  Edward  Cooper,  Rector  of  Hampstall 
Ridwane,  (a  distinguished  Episcopal  clergyman  of  England,  and 
no  Calvinist,)  it  is  thus  written:  "Among  no  denomination  or 
description  ofprofessing  Christians,  is  there  to  be  found  a  larger 
portion  of  humble,  pious,  and,  devoted  servants  of  God,  persons 
of  a  truly  Christian  spirit,  zealous  of  good  ivorhs,  and  exem- 
plary in  every  duty  and  relation  of  life,  than  among  those  ivho 
hold  the  Calvinistic  tenets.  I  am  sure  that  your  observation  and 
your  candour  will  fully  justify  this  statement.  And,  therefore, 
so  far  as  this  system  is  to  be  judged  of  by  its  actual  effects,  I 
think,  that  on  a  candid  reconsideration  of  the  subject,  you  will  be 
induced  to  abandon  your  objection,  and  to  admit,  that  it  was 
founded  on  an  erroneous  and  partial  view  of  the  subject."  The 
objection  which  he  was  exposing,  is  the  same  urged  by  Mr. 
Hughes — "  the  immoral  tendency  of  the  system."  He  says, 
"  Where  is  the  tendency  of  this  doctrine  to  make  its  followers 
slothful,  or  confident,  negligent  of  the  means  of  grace,  or  inat- 
tentive to  moral  and  relative  duties?"  He  also  calls  it  "  a  ca- 
lumniated system."  It  has  been  so  from  the  days  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  down  to  our  times.  But  if  the  gentleman  will  appeal  to  his- 
tory ;  to  facts ;  go  to  Calvinistic  New  England ;  to  Calvinistic 
Scotland ;  to  Calvinistic  Holland ;  or  to  American  Calvinists ; 
and  compare  them  with  the  glory  of  popery  anywhere,  in  any 
age !  This  is  the  test.  Let  us  appeal  to  it.  Agreeing  with  the 
gentleman,  that  any  system  whose  tetidency  is  immoral,  is  ruin- 
ous to  society,  and  to  all  its  blessings,  civil  and  religious,  I  go 
hand  in  hand  with  him,  into  his  own  boasted  religion.  And  I 
will  take  my  examples  from  the  era  of  the  Reformation,  after  the 
world  had  made  a  fair  trial  of  popery  for  ages;  when  Rome  had 
*'  extinguished  in  their  own  blood"  the  Albigenses  and  Wal- 
denses ;  and  when  Protestants,  properly  so  called,  arose  to  re- 
form, and  to  RESIST.  I  will  also  go  not  to  Protestant,  ^uiio pa- 
pal writers — who  can  be  supposed  to  have  no  ^^prejudices'' 
against  the  "  Catholic  Church,"  and  whose  testimony  shall  de- 
cide the  question. 

In  our  late  Controversy,  several  references  were  made  to  the 
"  Consilium,"  or  "  Letter  of  Advice,"  given  to  Paul  the  III.  by 
four  cardinals  and  five  prelates,  appointed  by  him  for  counselling 
him,  on  the  state  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  My  Reverend 
friend  seemed  exceedingly  reluctant  to  touch  this  state  paper  from 


383 

Rome  ;  or  to  permit  the  American  people  to  hear  of  it.  Copious 
extracts  from  it,  were  left  almost  imnoticed  by  him,  and  for  this 
plain  reason,  that  the  less  said  about  this  extraordinary  document 
the  better.  But  it  is  an  American  principle  to  examine  every  sub- 
ject. This  too,  is  the  fearless,  open-faced  spirit  of  universal  truth. 
It  is  needful  for  JRome,  but  not  for  Christianity,  to  cover  up. 
Borne  suifers  from  free  inquiry ;  truth  and  freedom  suffer  with- 
out it.  As  it  is  very  possible  that  my  learned  and  candid  friend 
may  deny  the  authority,  and  even  existence,  of  this  document,  a 
few  words  by  way  of  preface  may  not  be  out  of  place.  Pope 
Paul  III.  appointed  the  nine  dignitaries  of  the  church,  whose 
names  are  subscribed  to  the  paper,  to  give  him  their  advice,  as  to 
the  state  of  the  church,  and  the  best  method  of  reforming  it.  This 
they  did  with  such  plainness  that  he  did  not  venture  to  carry  their 
suggestions  into  effect;  though  he  so  far  approved  them  as  to 
publish  their  letter.  Its  disclosures  were  of  such  a  character  that 
the  Protestants  soon  republished  it  in  various  languages.  In  Ger- 
many, Sturmius  published  it  in  Latin,  with  a  preface ;  and  Luther 
gave  it  to  the  world  in  German  "  accompanied  (says  the  learned 
M'Crie  in  his  work  on  the  Reformation  in  Italy,  p.  115,)  with 
animadversions,  in  which  among  other  satirical  remarks,  he  says 
that  the  cardinals  contented  themselves  with  removing  the  small 
twigs^  while  they  allowed  the  trunk  of  corruption  to  remain  un- 
molested ;  and  like  the  Pharisees  of  old,  strained  at  gnats  and 
swallowed  camels.  To  set  this  before  the  eyes  of  the  readers,  he 
prefixed  to  the  book  a  print,  in  which  the  Pope  is  represented  as 
seated  on  a  high  throne  surrounded  by  the  cardinals,  who  hold  in 
their  hands,  long  poles  with  foxes'  tails  fixed  to  them  like  brooms, 
with  which  they  sweep  the  room." 

Pallavicini,  the  papal  historian  of  the  Council  of  Trent  (Lib. 
III.  Sec.  59,)  complains  that  the  Pope,  in  this  production,  exposes 
the  church.  He  writes  as  follows:  *' By  ordering  a  refor- 
mation of  morals,  he  acknowledged  the  existence  of  corruptions,  and 
countenanced  the  distracting  speeches  which  heretics  circulated 
among  the  vulgar." 

Cardinal  Quirini  refers  to  this  document  (in  his  Diatriba  De 
Gestis  Pauli  III.)  in  proof  Xh^i  Paul  wished  to  reform  the  church. 
He  tells  us  it  was  printed  at  Rome  by  Paul  III.  a.d.  1538.  Wol- 
fius  (in  his  Lee.  Memoral.  Tom.  ii.  p.  398—449.)  inserts  this 
Consilium,  or  "  Advice  of  the  Bishop,"  at  length,  with  a  Preface 
by  Vergerio.  It  was  also  reprinted  by  Schelhorn,  with  a  letter  to 
Cardinal  Quirini.     (See  M'Crie's  Italy,  pages  114 — 120.) 

It  is  a  singular  fact,  that  CarafTa,  one  of  these  nine  advisers, 
afterward,  when  he  became  Pope  Paul  IV.  actually  put  his  oivn 
joint  production  into  the  Prohibitory  Index,  as  a  condemned 
book !  Another  Pope  once  said,  when  taxed  with  a  change  in 
his  views,  after  his  elevation,  "  since  I  have  risen  higher,  I  see 


384 

better.''''  On  this  principle  ought  we  not  to  recommend  Brother 
Hughes  for  speedy  and  high  promotion  at  Rome  ? 

The  following  translation  of  the  Letter  of  Advice,  was  made  by 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Claggett  of  the  Established  Church  of  Great  Britain, 
and  may  be  seen  with  his  able  Preface  in  "  The  Preservative 
against  Popery,"  vol.  1st. 

So  much  for  the  history  of  this  document.  As  to  its  character 
and  7neaning,  we  ask  no  more  than  a  faithful  perusal  of  it,  to  con- 
vince any  lionest  man  that  such  a  church  cannot  be  infallible : 
Or  if  this  be  infallibility — from  such  perfection  good  Lord  deliver 
us  !  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  paper  is  Roman  Catholic 
testimony. 

"  The  advice  given  to  Pope  Paul  the  Third,  by  four  Car- 
dinals, and  five  other  Prelates,  whose  names  are  under- 
written, in  order  to  the  amendment  of  the  state  of  the 
Church. 

"  Most  blessed  Father,  we  are  so  unable  to  express  what  mighty 
thanks  the  whole  body  of  the  Church  is  bound  to  pay  to  Almighty 
God,  who  has  in  these  times  raised  up  you  to  be  the  Supreme 
Bishop  and  Pastor  of  his  flock,  and  gives  you  likewise  that  mind 
which  you  have,  that  we  have  no  hope  so  much  as  to  conceive 
how  great  they  are.  For  that  spirit  of  God,  by  which,  as  the 
prophet  speaks,  the  heavens  are  made  firm,  has  decreed,  as  we 
cannot  but  see,  by  your  hand  to  support  the  church,  now  that  she 
is  not  only  leaning,  but  just  falling  headlong  into  ruin ;  nay, 
to  advance  her  to  her  ancient  eminence,  and  to  restore  her  to  her 
former  beauty. 

"  It  is  no  uncertain  conjecture  of  this  purpose  of  God,  which 
we  are  enabled  to  make,  whom  your  holiness  called  to  you  and 
required,  that  without  any  regard  had  to  you,  or  to  any  one  else, 
we  should  signify  to  you  what  those  abuses  are,  and  most  griev- 
ous distempers  ivherewith  the  Church  of  God,  and  especially  the 
court  of  Rome,  has  for  a  long  time  been  affected,  whereby  also 
it  has  come  to  pass,  thcd  these  pestilent  diseases  growing  to  their 
height  by  little  and  little,  the  Church,  as  ive  see,  is  upon  the  very 
brink  of  ruin.  And  because  your  holiness  (being  taught  by  the 
Divine  Spirit,  who,  as  St.  Austin  says,  does  without  noise  of 
words  speak  in  the  heart)  very  well  understands  this  to  be  the 
original  of  these  mischiefs;  that  some  Popes,  your  predecessors, 
having  itching  ears,  as  says  the  apostle  Paid,  heaped  up  teach- 
ers after  their  own  lusts,  not  to  learn  from  them  ivhat  they  ought 
to  do,  but  that  they  should  take  pains  and  employ  their  ivit  to 
find  out  ways  how  it  might  be  lawful  for  them  to  do  what  they 
pleased:  to  which  we  may  add,  that  as  the  shadow  follows  the 
body,  9,0  flattery  follows  greatness,  and  truth  can  hardly  find  any 
way  to  the  ears  of  princes;  hence  it  has  come  to  pass,  that  there 


385 

have  been  doctors  ever  ready  to  maintain,  that  all  benefices  being 
the  Pope's^  and  the  Lord  having  a  right  to  sell  what  is  his  own, 
it  must  necessarily  follow,  that  the  Pope  is  not  capable  of  the 
guilt  of  simony ;  insomuch,  that  the  Pope's  ivill  and  pleasure, 
whatever  it  he,  must  needs  be  the  rule  for  all  that  he  does  ;  which 
doubtless  would  end  in  believing  every  thing  lawful  that  he  had 
a  mind  to  do. 

'■^  From  this  source,  as  from  the  Trojan  horse,  those  so  many 
abuses,  and  such  mortal  diseases,  have  broken  forth  into  the 
Church  of  God,  which  have  reduced  her,  as  we  see,  almost  to  a 
state  of  desperation  ;  the  fame  of  these  things  having  come  to  the 
ears  even  of  infidels,  (let  your  holiness  believe  us,  speaking  what 
we  know)  who  deride  Christianity  more  for  this,  than  for  any 
thing  else;  so  that  through  ourselves,  we  must  needs  say  through 
ourselves,  the  name  of  Christ  is  blasphemed  amongst  the  na- 
tions. 

"  But  to  reduce  all  our  thoughts  to  some  certain  heads ;  since 
your  holiness  is  both  the  prince  of  these  provinces,  ivhich  are  the 
ecclesiastic  estate  and  territory,  and  withal,  the  governor  of  the 
universal  Church,  and  liketvise  the  bishop  of  Rome;  we  have 
not  taken  upon  ourselves  to  speak  of  those  things  which  concern 
that  principality,  which,  by  your  prudence,  is  so  excellently  go- 
verned, as  we  see.  We  will  touch  upon  these  matters  only,  that 
belong  to  the  office  of  the  universal  pastor,  and  some  also  that  are 
proper  to  the  Roman  bishop. 

"  First  of  all  then,  we  think,  most  blessed  Father,  according  to- 
what  Aristotle  says,  in  his  Politics,  that,  as  in  every  other  com- 
monwealth, so  in  the  ecclesiastic  government  of  the  Church  of 
Christ,  it  should  be  esteemed  the  principal  law  of  all,  that  laws 
should  be  observed  as  much  as  is  possible ;  and  that  it  be  not  law- 
ful to  dispense  with  the  laws,  but  for  a  cause  urgent  and  neces- 
sary. But  one  thing  there  is  of  moment  next  to  this,  or  rather  of 
far  greater  consequence,  as  tve  think,  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  the 
Pope,  who  is  Christ's  vicar,  to  make  any  gain  to  himself  of  the 
use  of  the  keys,  of  the  power  of  the  keys  we  say,  which  Christ 
hath  committed  to  him.  For  this  is  the  commandment  of  Christ t 
Freely  ye  have  received,  freely  give. 

*'  And  here  the  first  abuse  in  this  kind  is,  that  in  the  ordina- 
tion of  clerks,  especially  of  Presbyters,  no  manner  of  care  and 
diligence  is  used,  but  every  where  the  most  uneducated  youths, 
of  the  vilest  parentage,  set  out  with  nothing  but  evil  manners, 
are  admitted  to  holy  orders,  even  to  priesthood  itself,  though 
that  be  the  character  which  expresseth  Christ  more  than  all 
others.  From  hence  grow  innumerable  scandals ;  from  hence 
comes  the  contempt  of  the  ecclesiastic  order;  and  hence  it  is,  that 
the  reverence  of  God's  worship  is  not  only  diminished,  hut  well 
nigh  extinguished. 

"  Another  abuse  of  a  most  grievous  nature,  is  in  the  collation 

49 


386 

of  ecclesiastical  benefices,  especially  with  cure  of  souls,  and  above 
all,  of  bishoprics ;  the  manner  having  been,  that  good  provision  is 
made  for  those  who  have  the  benefices,  but  for  the  flock  of  Christ, 
and  the  Church,  none  at  all. 

"  There  is  another  abuse  also  in  the  changing  of  benefices,  upon 
contracts,  that  are,  all  of  them,  simoniacal,  and  in  which  no  re- 
gard is  had  to  any  thing  but  g'ain. 

*'  Again ;  it  is  an  ancient  law  established  by  Clement,  that  the 
'  sons  of  priests  should  not  succeed  their  fathers  in  their  benefices; 
and  this,  lest  the  common  patrimony  of  the  Church  should  be- 
come a  private  estate.  But,  as  we  hear,  this  venerable  law  is 
dispensed  with;  and  we  must  not  conceal  what  every  prudent 
person  will,  by  himself,  discern  to  be  a  great  truth,  that  no  one 
thing  hath  raised  more  of  that  envy  against  the  clergy,  from 
whence  so  many  seditions  have  already  happened,  and  more  are 
at  hand,  than  this  turning  of  ecclesiastical  profits  and  revenues 
from  being  a  common  to  a  private  thing.  Ml  men  had  some 
hope  before  this,  but  now  they  are  reduced  to  despair,  and 
sharpen  their  tongues  against  this  holy  see. 

"  These  things  being  set  right,  which  refer  to  the  appointment 
of  your  ministers,  who  are,  as  it  were,  the  instruments  for  the 
right  performing  of  God's  worship,  and  the  well-ordering  of  the 
people  in  a  Christian  life ;  we  must  now  come  to  those  things 
which  relate  to  the  government  of  Christian  people:  as  to  which 
matter,  most  holy  father,  there  is  an  abuse  in  the  first  place  to  be 
corrected ;  and  the  greatest  care  is  to  be  taken,  that  bishops  espe- 
cially, no  nor  curates,  be  absent  from  their  churches  and  parishes, 
unless  for  a  weighty  cause,  but  keep  their  residence ;  but  espe- 
cially the  bishops,  since  they  are  the  husbands  of  the  Church 
committed  to  their  care.  For  we  appeal  to  God,  that  no  sight  can 
be  more  lamentable  to  a  Christian  man  going  through  Christen- 
dom, than  this  solitude  of  the  Churches.  Almost  all  the  pastors 
are  withdrawn  from  their  flocks,  which  are,  almost  every  where, 
entrusted  with  hirelings. 

"  In  the  orders  of  the  Religious,  there  is  another  abuse  to  be 
corrected,  that  many  of  them  are  so  degenerate,  that  they  are 
grown  scandalous,  and  their  examples  pernicious  to  the  Seculars. 
We  think  the  Conventual  orders  are  to  be  abolished,  not  by  doing 
to  any  man  that  injury  of  dispossessing  him,  but  by  forbidding 
them  to  admit  any  more:  for  thus,  without  wronging  any  one, 
they  would  soon  be  worn  out,  and  good  Religious  might  be  sub- 
stituted instead  of  them;  but  at  present,  it  were  best,  that  all 
children,  2vho  are  not  yet  professed,  shoidd  be  taken  from  their 
monasteries. 

"  We  have  already  said,  most  holy  father,  that  it  is  by  no 
means  lawful  to  make  any  gain  by  the  use  of  the  keys,  in  which 
matter  the  words  of  Christ  stand  firm  and  sure.  Freely  ye  have 
received,  freely  give.     This  does  not  only  belong  to  your  holi- 


387 

ness  to  take  notice  of,  but  to  all  who  share  in  this  power;  and, 
therefore,  we  desire,  that  it  may  be  observed  by  your  Legates 
and  Nuncios:  for,  as  the  custom  which  has  much  prevailed^  dis- 
honours this  see,  and  makes  the  people  clamorous,  so  the  con- 
trary would  be  exceedingly  for  the  ornament  of  the  one,  and  for 
the  edification  of  the  other. 

"  Christian  people  are  disturbed  by  another  abuse,  which  con- 
cerns Nuns,  that  are  under  the  care  of  the  Conventual  Friars, 
where,  in  most  monasteries,  public  sacrileges  are  committed,  to 
the  intolerable  scandal  of  the  citizens.  Let  your  holiness  deprive 
the  Conventuals  of  this  care,  and  give  it  to  the  ordinaries,  or  to 
others,  as  you  shall  see  cause. 

"  There  is  another  abuse  in  the  collectors  for  the  Holy  Ghost, 
for  St.  Anthony,  and  others  of  this  kind,  which  put  cheats  upon 
rusticks,  and  simple  people,  and  entangle  them  in  a  world  of 
superstition.  These  collectors,  we  think,  ought  to  be  taken 
away. 

"  We  conceive  it  also  to  be  an  abuse,  to  dispense  with  the  mar- 
riage of  those  that  are  in  the  second  degree  of  consangicinity,  or 
affinity,  unless  it  be  for  a  weighty  reason.  Nor  should  dispensa- 
tions be  granted  without  other  degrees,  but  where  the  cause  is 
honest,  and  still  without  money,  unless  the  parties  were  married 
before;  in  which  case,  it  is  lawful  to  impose  a  pecuniary  punish- 
ment, in  order  to  absolution  from  sin  already  committed,  and  to 
convert  it  to  pious  uses,  such  as  your  holiness  promotes.  For, 
as  where  there  is  no  sin  in  the  use  of  the  keys  to  be  done  away, 
no  money  can  be  demanded^  so  where  absolution  from  sin  is  de- 
sired, a  pecuniary  mulct  may  be  laid,  and  designed  for  pious 
uses. 

**  In  the  absolution  of  a  simoniacal  person,  there  is  another 
abuse ;  and  'tis  a  dismal  thing  to  consider,  that  this  plague  reigns 
in  the  Church  to  that  degree,  that  some  are  not  afraid  to  be 
guilty  of  simony,  and  to  go  presently  for  absolution. — The 
truth  is,  they  buy  their  absolution,  and  so  they  keep  the  benefice 
they  bought  before. 

"  It  has  been  a  custom  also  to  change  the  wills  of  testators, 
who  have  left  a  certain  sum  of  money  for  pious  and  charitable 
purposes;  which,  by  the  authority  of  your  holiness,  is  trans- 
ferred to  the  heir  or  the  legatee,  under  pretence  of  their  poverty, 
SfC,  and  this  is  gained  by  money  too. 

*'  And  thus,  according  to  our  capacity,  having  summarily  des- 
cribed all  those  things  which  belong  to  the  duty  of  a  supreme 
bishop  of  the  Catholic  Church ;  it  remains,  that  we  say  something 
of  that  which  belongs  to  the  Roman  bishop. — This  city  oi  Rome 
is  both  the  mother  of  the  Church,  and  mistress  of  other  Churches : 
wherefore,  the  worship  of  God  and  purity  of  manners  should 
flourish  there  most  of  all. 

"  Nay,  in  this  city,  whores  walk  about,  us  if  they  were  goodly 


388 

matrons;  or  they  ride  upon  muleSy  and  are  at  noon-day  followed 
up  and  doivn  by  men  of  the  best  account  in  the  families  of  car- 
dinals, and  by  clergymen.  We  see  no  such  degeneracy  in  any 
other  city,  but  in  this,  which  is  to  be  an  example  to  all  others. 
These  whores  live  in  splendid  houses:  ^tis  a  filthy  abuse,  and 
ought  to  be  mended. 

"  We  hope  that  you  are  chosen  to  restore  the  name  of  Christ, 
forgotten  by  the  nations,  and  even  by  us  of  the  clergy  ;  that  here- 
after it  may  live  in  our  hearts,  and  appear  in  our  actions,  to  heal 
our  diseases,  to  reduce  the  flock  of  Christ  into  one  sheep-fold,  to 
remove  from  us  that  indignation  and  vengeance  of  God,  which 
ive  deserve,  ivhich  is  now  ready  to  fall  upon  us,  which  now 
hangs  over  our  heads. 

"  The  names  of  the  Cardinals,  <^c. 

"  Gaspard,  Cardinal  Contarene. 

"  Job.  Peter,  Cardinal  Theaiine,  afterwards  Paul  IV. 

*'  James,  Cardinal  Sadolet. 

"  Reginald  Pole,  Cardinal  of  England. 

■"  Frederick,  Archbishop  of  Brundusium. 

"  Job.  Matthew  Gibet,  Bishop  of  Verona. 

*'  Gregory  Cortese,  Abbot  of  St.  George  at  Venice. 

*'  Friar  Thomas,  Master  of  the  Sacred  Palace. 

"  There  should  be  another  to  make  nine." 

Now  here  is  a  picture  of  the  papal  church  by  papal  authority, 
after  it  had  ruled  the  world  for  ages.  We  have  necessarily  omit- 
ted perhaps  one  half  of  its  contents,  from  the  extreme  length  of 
the  document.  But  let  any  impartial  mind  survey  this  scene  of  a 
church  in  ruins,  with  the  head  and  the  members,  the  ministry 
and  the  monasteries  rotten  at  the  heart,  and  all  tending  to  ruin, 
on  the  testimony  of  many  of  their  own  prelates  !  What  does  this 
history  say?  Does  it  not  show  the  need  of  a  reformation? 
And,  if  the  gentleman's  argument  be  true,  as  we  allow,  that  doc- 
trines which  lead  to  immorality  are  ruinous  and  anti-social  doc- 
trines, then,  what  must  those  doctrines  be  which  produce,  or 
even  tolerate,  such  corruptions?  It  is  but  reasoning  from  e^ec^ 
to  cause.  "  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them,''^  saith  our 
Lord.     Here  they  are  in  loathsome  profusion. 

If  my  hearers  will  now  advert  to  all  that  I  have  said  of  the 
doctrines  of  indulgences,  of  purgatory,  of  penance,  of  priestly 
pardon  of  sins,  o^  auricidar  confession,  of  celibacy,  to  name  no 
•more,  they  will  be  able  clearly  to  discern  the  natural,  the  neces- 
sary causes  of  these  tremendous  effects  on  morals  and  social 
order. 

Before  I  close  I  must  notice  some  of  the  gentleman's  imper- 
tinences, which  come  out  at  the  close,  like  dregs,  from  an  ex- 
hausted mind,  and  a  choleric  spirit. 

He  says  my  "  quotation  of  his  language  (about  the  Jesuits)  is 


389 

not  to  be  depended  on.^^  I  spurn  his  reflections;  and  appeal  to 
his  documents.  He  said  I  paid  him  an  unintended  "  complimenV^ 
by  calling  him  a  Jesuit.  Moreover,  he  has  been  their  eulogist 
uniformly,  in  both  my  controversies  with  him.  In  the  Jirsty(l) 
Mr.  Hughes  says  of  the  Jesuits: — "  In  my  opinion  religion  and 
science  suffered  by  the  suppression  of  the  Jesuits;  and  that  both 
ure  gainers  by  their  restoration.^^  Is  not  this  praise?  And,  in 
the  light  of  my  previous  abundant  exposure  of  their  terrific 
doctrines,  it  is  praise  most  disgraceful  to  the  author. 

He  said,  at  the  same  j9/«cc,  "  The  Inquisition  may  have  been 
A  GOOD  THING  abuscd.''^  It  is  to  trifle  with  Heaven,  and  insult  all 
men,  but  inquisitors,  to  say  so.  Is  not  this  being  its  "  apologist?" 
If  it  should  result  that  I  misquote  his  words,  now  that  they  are 
written  words,  the  gentleman  must  remember  that  if  words  be 
■changed  after  I  quote  them,  it  is  no  fault  of  mine.  If  they  be 
not  changed,  my  quotations  will  be  found  literal,  when  I  profess 

them  so.     Sometimes  it  is   necessary  to  give  the  substance a 

page  of  trash  in  a  sentence.     I  try  to  be  a  faithful  chymist. 

Dr.  Miller  is  still  kept  up  before  the  public.  Mr.  Hughes 
reminds  me  of  a  fop  I  once  knew,  whose  chief  business  seemed 
to  be  to  convince  the  little  world  that  he  was  intimate  with  the 
great  world.  Mr.  Hughes  may  be  assured  that  Dr.  Cook,  and  the 
•other  kitchen-scnhhXexs  who  unite  with  him  in  calumniating 
Dr.  Miller,  have  not  destroyed  an  hour  of  his  rest.  The  only 
emotion  which  Dr.  Miller  and  many  others  feel,  in  contemplating 
these  men,  (who  dishonour,  by  being  in  it,  a  much  valued  Chris- 
tian Church)  is,  wonder  that  they  do  not  go  all  the  way  to  popery ; 
like  the  newly  "  converted  Burlington  brother,"  who  has  relieved 
himself  of  inconsistency,  wife,  children,  and  all  "  other  bio-  and 
little  responsibilities,'"  as  Fanny  Wright  called  such  ungodly 
encumbrances,  by  joining  himself  to  you. 

The  gentleman  is  mistaken  about  my  "  altering  my  tone." 
He  falsely  charged  me  with  unkindness  to  ^^poor"  emigrants. 
I  replied,  "  we  fear  not  the  virtuous  poor.  Bich,  or  poor,  if 
they  be  Jesuits,  priests,  or  their  tools,  we  do  fear  them. 

I  regret  that  my  allusion  to  the  "  convent''  makes  the  gentle- 
man expose  himself.  My  defence  is  in  the  proof  already  given, 
that,  in  other  days  (2)  monastic  institutions  were  very  brothels. 
If  the  Boston  mob  were  mistaken  in  the  opinion,  I  cannot  help  it. 
I  asserted  no  more  than  that  they  did  so  think. 

The  letreat  of  Mr.  Hughes  before  Daniel  Webster,  and  the 
other  authorities  cited  by  me,  is  characteristic.  His  forces,  like 
the  Roman  quincunx,  retain  their  shape,  though  they  may  shift 
their  position.     He  now  retreats,  blustering  against  me.     I  called 

(1)  See  Letter  XXXI. 

(2)  See  the  same  subject,  called  " sacrilege"  exposed  by  the  nine  bishops 
and  cardinals  quoted  in  this  speech. 


390 

for  his  authority  for  saying  that  the  Sunday  School  Union 
declared  "  their  desire  to  become  the  dictators  of  the  consciences 
of  thousands  of  immortal  beings.''  This  the  gentleman  quoted^ 
with  appropriate  marks^  and  underscored,  as  from  the  docu- 
ments of  the  Society.  I  called  for  the  reference.  He  has  with- 
held it.  I  now  demand  it  again — the  year  and  the  page  of  the 
report  containing  it;  and,  if  not  produced,  I  will  expose  the 
gentleman. 

In  reply  to  his  question,  How  the  rich  Protestants  are  to  be 
bought  up  by  monies  sent  from  such  poor  Catholic  countries 
abroad?  I  answer.  The  Catholic  Church  is  rich.  The  pope 
and  priesthood  are  rich.  The  emperor  of  Austria  is  rich.  The 
monastic  houses  are  rich.  The  Jesuits  are  rich.  The  people 
are  poor,  and  oppressed  too.  The  church  and  the  pope,  the 
Austrian  monarch,  and  the  propaganda,  and  the  Leopold  Found- 
ation, they  send  the  Tnoney  and  the  m.en.  Does  the  answer 
satisfy  1 

In  regard  to  "  Mr.  Smith''  his  papal  vouchers  and  recom- 
mendations falsify  Mr.  Hughes's  attack.  Gentlemen,  you  per- 
haps recollect  the  fable  of  the  fox  and  the  grapes.  The  grapes, 
which  were  out  of  his  reach,  were  sour.  As  soon  as  a  man 
leaves  popery  he  is  not  "  worth  having;  yet  they  catch  only  the 
offscourings  of  Protestantism — half  crazy  women,  who  want 
homes;  romantic,  disappointed  old  maids,  and  men  who  have 
sunk  into  contempt  in  Protestant  pulpits.  So  far  popery  drains 
usefully.     You  are  welcome  to  all  you  have,  or  may  yet  have. 

It  is  ominous  to  see  the  priest  of  Rome  assail  "  the  continental 
Congress."  He  is  most  wise  to  forbear  meeting  these  state- 
ments. It  is  easy  to  assert  or  deny.  Now,  here  is  that  vener- 
able body  publicly  declaring  that  "  the  Catholic  religion  has 
DELUGED  England  with  blood."  A  priest  of  Rome  denies  it. 
Which  is  the  more  weighty,  disinterested  party? — which 
most  devoted  to  American  liberty?  Yet  it  was  to  warn  Eng- 
land again^st  popery  in  North  America  that  the  paragraph  which 
so  sorely  wounds  the  "  man  of  sin"  was  drafted. 

P.S.  Why  has  the  gentleman  so  strangely  forgotten  John 
Wesley's  argument?     Let  us  hear  from  him  on  that  subject. 


391 


**  Is  the  Presbyterian  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  7" 


AFFIRMATIVE  IV.—MR.  HUGHES. 

I  HAD  occasion,  Mr.  President,  to  point  out  to  the  attention  of 
this  meeting  and  the  public,  the  efforts  of  the  gentleman,  to  ac- 
complish, by  the  help  of  prejudice,  what  he  knows  he  cannot 
accomplish  by  the  use  of  legitimate  weapons,  sound  argument, 
and  sober  reasoning.  When  these  are  fairly  twisted  out  of  his 
hands,  and  turned  against  him,  he  stoops  to  avail  himself  of  every 
abusive  epithet,  that  may  render  his  opponent  odious  in  the  esti- 
mation of  those  for  whom  alone  he  seems  to  speak  and  write — the 
bigoted,  the  prejudiced,  the  ignorant.  "  Papist,"  "  Emissaries  of 
the  Pope,"  "Foreigner,"  "Jesuit," — these  are  his  last  and  safest 
resource.  I  showed  him,  that  a  similar  mode  of  refutation  was 
employed  against  Christ,  by  those  who  called  him  a  "  Samaritan,'* 
and  said  "  he  had  a  devil."  In  other  words,  I  showed  him,  that 
abuse  is  not  argument.  I  refer  the  reader  to  the  passage ;  and, 
if  it  appears,  that  I  did  not  "  compare  myself  to  Jesus  Christ," 
NOR  him  to  "  the  murderers  of  our  Master,"  it  will  follow,  that  in 
charging  me  with  having  done  this,  he  "  bears  false  witness 
AGAINST  HIS  NEIGHBOUR."     Is  it  not  SO  ?     I  refer  to  the  passage. 

He  next  returns  to  the  "  predestination."     He  admits,  that 
the  burning  of  Huss   was   "fore-ordained"   by   God;   and  yet, 
charges  on  the  council,  as  a  crime,  that  it  did  not  oppose  and  de- 
feat what  God  had  thus  "  fore-ordained ! ! !"     But,  I  refer  to  the 
argument,  as  stated  in  my  last  speech,  and  ask  the  reader  to  say 
whether  the  gentleman  has  not  completely  evaded  it.     He  cannot 
meet  it.     A  doctrine  which  has  decided,  that  ''from  all  eternity, 
God  has  fore-ordained  whatsoever   comes   to   pass,"   takes 
away  a// liberty,  civil,  religious,  and  personal.     There  are  no  two 
ways  of  it.     The  thing  is  plain,  and  cannot  be  denied.     Either 
the  doctrine  is  false,  or  else  there  is  no  liberty.     Man,  according 
to  that  principle,  is  a  machine ;   and  conscience,  a  mockery.     I 
wish  the  gentleman  to  go  back  to  my  last  speech,  and  attempt  to 
show  error  in  the  reasoning  by  which  I  established  this  conse- 
quence.    That  he  has  not  done  so,  I  take  as  a  proof,  that  he  feels 
the  thing  to  be  impossible.     His  attempt  to  prove  the  doctrine  by 
texts  of  Scripture,  shows,  that  I   stated  it  fairly — and  this  is 


392 

enough.  If  the  question  were  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  and 
not  of  its  bearing-  on  civil  and  religious  liberty,  I  should  follow 
him,  and  expose  his  perversion  of  the  sacred  writings,  when  he 
quotes  them,  in  support  of  the  blasphemy,  that  makes  God  first 
^^ fore-ordain''^  the  sin,  and  then  punish  the  sinner  for  having 
done  that  which  he  could  not  avoid  doing  ! ! 

I  had  stated,  that  (except,  perhaps,  the  Congregationalists)  "  the 
high-toned  Presbyterians  were  the  only  denomination  that  had 
not  become  ashamed  of  the  avowal  of  this  doctrine."  He  does 
not  meet  the  statement;  and  yet,  by  a  slight  shifting  of  terms,  he 
affects  to  have  refuted  it.  He  says,  the  "  twelve  creeds  of  the 
original  Reformers,"  and  the  "  Episcopalian  articles"  have  it. 
But  had  I  denied  this  ?  Did  I  assert,  that  "  creeds  and  articles" 
— parchment,  are  capable  of  becoming  "  ashamed?"  I  said,  those 
"denominations"  had  become  ashamed  to  avow  the  doctrine  of 
predestination,  as  avowed  by  the  high-toned  Presbyterians.  Has 
the  gentleman  refuted  the  statement?  Not  a  word  of  it.  He 
slides  the  question  from  the  "  denomination"  spoken  of,  into  the 
'*  creeds  and  articles;"  and  this  he  calls  "  proof." 

He  charges  me  with  having  said,  that  "  except  the  Calvinistic 
Baptists,  the  Baptists  are  not  Calvinists."  The  gentleman,  him- 
self, is  entitled  to  the  merit  of  so  silly  an  assertion.  I  know,  as 
well  as  he,  that  none  of  the  Baptists  are  "  Calvinists."  The 
branch  of  that  denomination,  which  holds  the  doctrine  of  "  fore- 
ordination,  is  called,  from  this  circumstance,  "  Calvinistic  Bap- 
tists ;"  and  I  stated  what  the  gentleman  has  not  denied,  that  all 
the  other  sections  of  that  denomination  had  become  ashamed  of 
the  avowal  of  that  doctrine.  When  he  invents  a  witty  statement, 
and  puts  it  forth  as  mine,  it  becomes  proper,  that  I  should  dis- 
claim it,  and  let  him  enjoy  the  advantages  of  his  wit. 

That  St.  Augustine  ever  taught  the  doctrine,  that  "  God  has., 
from  all  eternity,  fore-ordained  WHATSOEVER  to  pass,^^  is 
what  I  positively  deny.  And  now,  let  the  gendeman  *'  expose 
me,"  as  he  promised.  To  assert  it,  is  a  libel  on  his  character. 
The  doctrine  implicitly  accuses  God,  as  being  the  author  of  sin ; 
and  it  is  a  libel  on  the  character  of  the  Scriptures  to  say,  that  they 
inculcate  any  such  impions  tenet. 

I  said,  that  by  his  creed,  he  is  bound  to  "  remove,  according 
to  his  place  and  calling,  all  falsk  worship,  and  all  the  monu- 
ments of  idolatry;"  and  that,  by  the  AMERICAN  CONSTITU- 
TION he  is  bound  to  leave  them  wliere  they  are.  If  he  obeys 
his  country,  he  disobeys  God.  Can  he  obey  both  ?  Impossible. 
So  long  as  the  Presbyterians  abstain  from  "removing  all  false 
worship,"  so  long  do  they  continue  in  the  VIOLATION  of  one 
of  God's  commandments,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith.  I  ask  the  gentleman  whether  this  is  not  the  fact?  I  ask, 
"  o?2  Presbyterian  principles,''^  \\ow  he  can  get  over  it?  He 
"thinks"  this  is  the  "twelfth  time"  the  question  has  been  put; 


393 

— well ;  let  him  answer  it,  and  I  promise  I  shall  not  afflict  him  with 
it  afterwards.  But  let  him  meet  it  fairly  and  fully.  Will  he  tell 
us  how  Presbyterians  can  obey  GOD  by  "  removing  false  wor- 
ship;" and  obey  the  CONSTITUTION  by  NOT  removing  ii, 
but  minding  their  own  business  ? 

I  quoted  from  the  Confession,  the  doctrine,  that  the  "  magis- 
trates" OF  THIS  REPUBLIC  are  bound  to  be  "  nursing  fathers" 
to  the  Church.  I  have  quoted  from  the  same  Confession  of  Faith 
the  meaning  of  "  the  Church."  I  showed,  that  to  belong  to  "  the 
Church,"  it  was  necessary  to  "profess"  the  "true  religion;" 
and  that  to  "  profess  the  true  religion,"  it  was  necessary  to  admit 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  "as  containing  the  summary  of  the 
doctrines,  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures."  So  that  by  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  the  baby  to  which 
the  "  magistrates"  are  to  become  "  nursing  fathers."  Has  the 
gentleman  denied  this?  Has  he  met  the  argument?  Supposing 
the  Catholics  held  such  a  doctrine ;  supposing  they  maintained, 
that  the  magistrates'  duty  is  to  be  "  nursing  fathers"  to  the 
Church,  as  they  understand  it;  how  loudly  would  the  country  ring 
with  denunciations  against  them !  Yet  here  is  the  doctrine  avowed 
by  the  Presbyterian  creed ;  and  its  ministers  pretend,  that  they  are 
only  anxious,  forsooth,  that  all  denominations  should  be  equally 
protected ! 

The  gentleman  says,  "  we  hold,  that  not  only  the  Presbyterians, 
but  all,  every  where,  who  love  the  Lord,  are  of  Christ's  Church." 
Now,  this  is  something  like  charity.  But  he  forgets,  that  he  and 
a  few  others,  at  Pittsburg,  excommunicated  the  whole  Catho- 
lic world,  both  of  the  present  and  of  past  generations,  as  being 
no  part  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  Noiv,  he  tells  us,  that  if  they 
"  loved  the  Lord,"  they  were  "  of  Christ's  Church."  Why,  then, 
did  he  not  postpoiie  their  excommunication,  until  he  should  be 
certain  whether  they  "  loved  the  Lord,"  or  not?  But  in  making 
the  "love  of  the  Lord"  the  criterion  of  "  Christ's  Church,"  has 
he  stated  the  Presbyterian  doctrine?  Not  he,  indeed.  The 
universal  designation,  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  is  not  those 
"  who  love  the  Lord,"  but  those  who  "  PROFESS  the  TRUE 
RELIGION,  TOGETHER  WITH  THEIR  CHILDREN."(1) 
The  Synod  of  York  may  meet  again,  ami  before  the  period  of 
its  meeting,  I  advise  the  gentleman  to  retract  his  new  defini- 
tion, and  to  return  to  the  "  standards."  Otherwise,  his  orthodoxy 
may  become  a  subject  of  investigation. 

He  says,  "  we  (Presbyterians)  believe  a  part  of  the  true  Church 
lay  hid  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  at  the  occurrence  of  the  reforma- 
tion." ''Apart  lay  hid;"  then,  the  inference  is,  that  since  it  was 
**  HID,"  he  cannot  know  any  thing  respecting  it.  But  the  other 
parts,  that  were  not  "  hid" — does  the  gentleman  know  any  thing 

(1)  See  pagciii 176,  346. 

50 


394 

of  them  either?  He  testifies  to  what  was  invisible,  *'  hid," — and 
acknowledges,  that  the  other  "  part,"  or  "  parts"  of  the  true  Church 
which  were  not  invisible,  were  nowhere  to  be  found ! !  In  fact, 
the  Church  was  visible  then,  as  it  is  now. 

The  quotation,  which  the  gentleman  has  adduced  from  the  Ca- 
tholic Telegraph,  as  evidence  of  Catholic  sentiment  respecting 
this  government,  is  every  way  discreditable  to  him,  as  a  logician, 
and  as  a  friend  of  truth.  As  a  logician,  because,  if  the  writer  of 
it  had  been  a  Catholic  of  the  United  States,  still  it  would  be  illo- 
gical and  unjust  to  make  the  whole  body  of  the  Catholics  account- 
able for  his  assertions  and  views.  As  a  lover  of  truth,  for  in  this 
cliaracter  he  knew,  or  ought  to  have  known,  that  it  was  an  article 
copied  from  a  Canadian  paper,  the  Advocate,  and  published  to 
show  the  handle  which  the  disgraceful  proceedings,  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  convent  at  Boston,  were  giving  to  the  enemies  of  re- 
publican institutions.  If  the  gentleman  did  not  know  this,  he 
was  culpably  ignorant;  and  he  must  excuse  me  for  saying  what 
all  honest  men  will  admit,  that  his  culpable  ignorance  is  no  excuse 
for  the  calumnies  with  which  he  is  attempting  to  blacken  the  cha- 
racter of  the  Catholics  of  the  country.  When,  therefore,  he  says, 
it  was  the  language  of  a  "  papal  journal,"  the  Catholic  Telegraph, 
he  says  what  is  destitute  of  truth.  It  was  copied  into  that  paper, 
from  a  foreign  journal,  as  similar  articles  were  copied  into  most 
of  our  secular  papers,  without  being  the  language  or  the  senti- 
ments of  the  editors. 

As  for  Bishop  England's  sentiments,  on  the  propriety  of  lay- 
men not  interfering  in  the  government  of  the  Church,  they  are 
such  as  he  has  a  right,  in  the  exercise  of  his  own  judgment,  to 
entertain  and  express.  With  us,  doctrines  are  not  made  up,  as 
with  Presbyterians,  from  the  gatherings  of  the  opinions  of  the 
people.  They  are  tenets  of  revelation;  they  are  held  and  taught 
as  such,  and  the  votes  of  the  people  cannot  make  them  true  or 
false.  They  were  revealed  to  be  taught  and  believed,  and  not  to 
be  "  coughed  down''''  in  such  assemblies  as  the  late  Synod  of 
York. 

When  the  gentleman  represents  Bishop  England,  as  having 
"  disgraced  himself  by  his  open  defence  of  the  inquisition,^^  he 
states,  or  assumes  against  that  calumniated  prelate,  a  charge  which 
is  utterly  false.  He  did,  what  I  have  done  myself,  in  the  former 
part  of  this  Discussion ; — he  instructed  the  popular  ignorance  of 
those  Protestants,  who  supposed,— from  the  prejudices  instilled 
into  them  by  false  teaching  from  the  pulpits,  and  false  statements 
in  books, — that  the  inquisition  was  a  portion  of  the  Catholic  reli- 
gion. He  proved,  that  it  was  no  such  thing.  The  charge  of  "  de- 
fending the  inquisition,"  deserves  the  same  appellation  by  which 
the  Protestant  editor  of  Cincinnati  characterized  the  calumny, 
published  in  all  the  Presbyterian jpapers,  and  never  corrected  in 
any,  about  "  hats  off  gentlemen,  the   bishop's  coming" — he 


395 

railed  it  an  "  impudent  he."  But  I  shall  not  so  designate  this 
charge  against  Bishop  England.  I  shall  only  say,  it  is  unfounded 
ill  truth. 

The  quotation  from  Palvicini  is  not  to  bo  found  in  the  refer- 
ence given.  The  gentleman  could  not  understand  it,  if  he  saw  it. 
Let  him,  therefore,  get  some  one  who  can  give  the  reference  cot- 
rectly.  In  the  meantime,  it  purports  to  he  "  The  advice  given  to 
Paul  III.  by  FOUR  cardinals,  and  five  other  prelates,  whose 
nmnes  are  written  under,  in  order  to  the  amend7nent  of  the  state 
of  the  Church.^'  And  yet,  though  there  aie  "  four"  and  "  five" 
names  "  tinder-written''  in  the  document,  the  translator,  when  he 
has  given  "  eight"  names,  says,  with  much  simplicity,  there  should 
be  another  to  make  nine!!"  But,  besides  this,  Raynaldi,  in  re- 
ference to  this  document,  states,  positively,  that  it  w^as  vitiated  in 
the  marginal  notes,  put  by  both  Sturmius  and  Luther.  Supposing, 
however,  that  it  is  precisely  what  the  gentleman  represents,  it 
only  proves  the  solicitude  of  its  authors,  to  see  men  brought  back  to 
the  purity  and  holiness  of  Catholic  morals;  and  certainly  does  not 
prove,  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  religion  are  not  op- 
posed to  civil  and  religious  liberty. 

The  gentleman,  in  pretending  to  meet  my  argument  on  the 
subject  of  predestination,  represents  me  as  charging  on  Presbyte- 
rians DISHONESTY  AND  IMMORALITY.  Hcro,  again,  I  am  constiain- 
ed  to  advise  the  meeting,  that  his  statement  is  not  to  be  depended 
on.  Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  the  passage,  as  it 
stands  in  my  speech,  will  discover,  that  I  showed  simply  the 
consequences  naturally  flowing  from  the  doctrine  of"  God's  de- 
crees," as  stated  in  the  Confession  of  Faith ;  by  which,  men  are 
"  fore-ordained"  from  all  eternity  to  everlasting  life,  or  everlast- 
ing death,  in  such  a  manner,  that  neither  their  good  works,  nor 
their  evil  actions  can,  in  the  least,  alter  or  affect  their  eternal  des- 
tiny. This  is  the  doctrine  of  Presbyterianism — the  gentleman 
cannot  deny  it.  *Rs  a  necessary  "  consequence''  of  this  doctrine, 
I  stated,  that  Presbyterians  ^^  may"  commit  every  immoral  act  to 
which  selfish  or  sectarian  ambition  prompts  them.  He  represents 
me,  as  charging  them  with  actually  doing  these  immoral  acts ; 
and  it  is  in  this,  that  he  "  bears  false  witness  against  his  neigh- 
bour," and  makes  the  statement  which  is  not  to  be  depended  on. 
Yet,  it  is  a  fact,  that  is  sustained  by  the  general  experience  of 
mankind,  that  the  more  "  religious"  Presbyterian  individuals  be- 
come, the  more  diminished  is  the  confidence  which  persons  of 
other  denominations  are  willing  to  place  in  their  intcgi'ity,  as  re- 
gards matters  of  this  world  generally.  Those  who  before  were 
frank,  sincere,  generous,  charitable,  and  every  thing  that  man  has 
a  right  to  expect  from  his  fellow  men  in  the  social  relations  of 
life,  become, — from  the  moment  they  are  deeply  indoctrinated  in 
the  Confession  of  Faith, — more  or  less  gloomy,  morose,  dlil^cral, 
uncharitable,  (except  to  saints  like  themselves,)  and  with  regard  to 


396 

the  rest  of  mankind^  infinitely  pharisaical.  In  general,  however, 
the  worst  of  them  are  greatly  better  than  their  creed.  Common 
sense,  the  opinions  of  mankind,  and  the  inextinguishable  sympa- 
thies of  human  nature,  work  out  in  practice,  and  defeat  the  irre- 
sponsible licentiousness,  that  is  authorized  by  a  doctrine,  which 
teaches,  that  men  will  be  saved  or  damned  by  a  "  DECREE," 
fixed  from  all  eternity,  and  which  neither  good  works  nor  bad 
works  have  any  power  to  alter.  All  things  are  "  FORE-OR- 
DAINED." This  is  enough.  It  brings  the  matter  to  this  point, 
that  whenever  a  crime  is  committed,  it  could  not  be  avoided  by 
the  agent,  who  was  acting  under  the  eternal  decree  of  OM- 
NIPOTENCE. 

The  gentleman  wishes  me  to  charge  the  Presbyterians  directly 
with  the  immoralities,  thus  authorized,  in  the  doctrine  of  their 
creed.  Then,  he  would  say,  that  /  was  a  calumniator,  and  he 
would  be  the  defender,  of  their  character.  I  charge  not  their 
character ;  and  his  certificates  from  Bancroft  and  Burnet  are,  to 
my  mind,  extremely  ridiculous.  The  argument  does  not  require 
me  to  show  what  Presbyterians  are,  but  what  their  creed  makes 
it  of  no  importance  in  the  future  life  for  them  to  have  been. 

He  asks  me  whether  I  know  who  Burnet  was  ?  I  answer  yes. 
He  was  the  husband  of  a  Presbyterian  wife — the  son  of  a  Presby- 
terian mother.  He  was  an  Episcopalian  in  head,  for  he  wore  a 
bishop's  mitre,  and  received  a  bishop's  revenue.  But  he  was, 
probably,  and  in  my  opinion,  decidedly,  a  Presbyterian  in  heart. 
He  was  a  faithless  historian,  who  published,  as  HISTORY,  says 
Sir  James  Macintosh,  "  the  evidence  on  one  side  thus  raked  to- 
gether by  him  as  a  purveying  advocate,"  against  the  legitimacy 
and  claims  of  the  Prince  of  Wales  to  the  throne  of  England. 
When  the  "evidence"  "raked  together,"  expressly  and  avowedly 
for  that  purpose,  was  found  to  be  unnecessary,  he  published  it  as 
HISTORY  (1) 

And  now,  since  I  have  shown,  that  I  know  who  Burnet  was, 
and  who  "  Usher"  was,  I  must  beg  leave  to  cite,  by  way  of  certi- 
ficate, for  the  morality  of  Presbyterians,  the  testimony,  not  of  a 
Unitarian,  or  a  Papist,  or  a  moderate  Arminian,  but  of  the  whole 
Church  of  Scotland,  met  in  General  Assembly.  Let  the  gentle- 
man and  the  audience  not  say,  that  Mr.  Hughes  is  slandering  the 
Presbyterian  denomination — the  witnesses  are  the  United  Fathers 
of  the  Church  itself.  In  the  preample  to  an  act  of  the  Assembly, 
passed  in  the  year  1578,  it  is  set  forth,  that  "  the  General  As- 
sembly OF  THE  kirk  finding  UNIVERSAL  CORRUPTION  OF  THE 
WHOLE  ESTATES  OF  THE  BODY  OF  THE  REALM,  THE  GREAT  COLD- 
NESS AND  SLACKNESS  IN  RELIGION  IN  THE  GREATEST  PART  OF  THE 
PROFESSORS  OF  THE  SAME,  WITH  THE  DAILY  INCREASE  OF  ALL  KIND 
OF    FEAi^FUL    SINS  AND    ENORMITIES,  AS    INCESTS,  ADULTERIES,  MUR- 

(1)  Macintosh's  History  of  Revolution,  p.  617. 


397 

DERS,  (committed  IN  EDINBURGH  AND  STIRLING,)  CURSED  SACRI- 
LEGE, UNGODLY  SEDITION  AND  DIVISION  WITHIN  THE  BOWELS  OF 
THE  REALM,  WITH  ALL  MANNER  OF  DISORDERED  AND  UNGODLY 
LIVING,"  SlC.  &C. 

Ill  the  year  1648,  about  seventy  years  after  this,  the  General 
Assembly  again  testify  to  the  state  of  Presbyterian  morality  in 
Scotland ;  and  state,  that  "  ignorance  of  God,  and  of  his  son, 
Jesus  Christ,  prevailed  exceedingly  in  the  land;   that  it 

WERE  impossible  TO  RECKON  UP  ALL  THE  ABOMINATIONS  THAT 
WERE  IN  THE  LAND  ;    AND    THAT   THE    BLASPHEMING    OF    THE    NAME 

OF  God,  swearing  by  the  creatures,  profanation  of  the 
Lord's  day,  uncleanliness,  excess  and  rioting,  vanity  of  ap- 
parel, LYING  AND  DECEIT,  RAILING  AND  CURSING,  ARBITRARY  AND 
UNCONTROLLED  OPPRESSION,  AND  GRINDING  THE  FACES  OF  THE  POOR 
BY  LANDLORDS,  AND  OTHERS  IN  PLACE  AND  POWER,  WERE  BECOME 
ORDINARY  AND  COMMON  SINS."  (1) 

The  testimony  of  the  associate  synod,  as  late  as  the  year  1778, 
is  of  similar  import.  "  A  general  unbelief  of  revealed  reli- 
gion (prevails)  among  the  HIGHER  ORDERS  OF  OUR  COUNTRYMEN, 
WHICH  HATH,  BY  A  NECESSARY  CONSEQUENCE  PRODUCED,  IN  VAST 
NUMBERS,  AN  ABSOLUTE  INDIFFERENCE  AS  TO  WHAT  THEY  BELIEVE, 
EITHER  CONCERNING  TRUTH  OR  DUTY,  ANY  FARTHER  THAN  IT  MAY 
COMPORT  WITH  THEIR  WORLDLY  VIEWS."  (2) 

Then,  speaking  not  of  the  "  higher  orders,"  but  of  the  "  coun- 
try generally,"  they  lament  it  as  now,  "  through  the  preva- 
lence OF  INFIDELITY,  IGNORANCE,  LUXURY,  AND  VENALITY  SO 
MUCH  DESPOILED  OF  ALL  RELIGION,  AND  FEELING  THE  WANT  OF 
IT."  (3) 

If  we  go  back  to  the  first  congregation  of  Presbyterians  in  Scot- 
land, those  who  murdered  Cardinal  Beaton  and  their  associates, 
including  their  preachers,  John  Rough  and  John  Knox,  we  shall 
find,  that  the  picture  of  morals  was  nearly  uniform  from  first  to 
last.  Buchanan,  a  Presbyterian  himself,  tells  us  that,  after  having 
exercised  on  the  cardinal,  what  Fox,  in  his  lying  Book  of  Mar- 
tyrs,  blasphemously  calls    not   only  the   "  judgment,"   but  the 

*'  WORK"  of  God,  "  THEY  MADE  A  VERY  BAD  USE  OF  THIS  RES- 
PITE, WHICH  THIS  TEMPORARY  ACCOMMODATION  PROCURED  THEM; 
AND  THAT,  NOTWITHSTANDING  THE  ADMONITIONS  OF  KnOX,  THEY 
SPENT  THEIR  TIME  IN  WHOREDOM  AND  ADULTERY,  AND  ALL  THE 
VICES  OF  IDLENESS."  (4) 

Take  in  connexion  with  this  state  of  public  morals,  the  hypo- 
critical sanctimoniousness  which  made  them  so  tender  of  "  God's 
honour,"  that,  whilst  these  crimes  were  flagrant  and  universal 

(1)  Acknowledgment  of  Sins. 

(2)  Warning,  p.  54. 

(3)  Ibid,  p.  64. 

(4)  Guthrie's  History  of  Scotland,  V.  p.  397. 


398 

among  themselves,  they  were  passing  laws,  making  it  death  for  the 
Catholic  to  have  "  heard  or  said  mass  three  times"  ! ! !  They 
whine  over  their  own  flagrant  violations  of  the  law  of  God,  whilst, 
hy  way  of  appeasing  Heaven,  they  twist  the  rope,  or  whet  the 
sword  of  death  against  the  Catholic  for  an  act  of  religious  worship 
"  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  conscience,"  and  performed  too, 
it  may  be,  with  closed  and  bolted  doors,  or  in  the  cave  of  the 
mountains.  Sir,  the  gentleman  must  be  profoundly  ignorant  of 
the  history  of  his  system,  or  he  never  would  have  pushed  himself 
forward  on  public  notice  as  the  advocate  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  and  that,  too,  in  the  name  of  Presbyterianism,  above  all 
others'  creeds ! !  He  must  have  supposed  that  I  was  as  unac- 
quainted with  it  as  himself,  or  he  never  would  have  forced  himself 
on  my  attention,  seeing  that,  if  I  did  not  spurn  his  advances,  I,  at 
least,  shrank  from  his  importunate  approaches.  Let  him  now 
leave  oif  borrowing  "  certificates"  of  character  from  Bancroft  and 
Burnet;  and  make  himself  acquainted  with  history — with  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Presbyterian  fathers ;  and  if  he  can  refute  it,  let  him 
do  so.  If  he  cannot — let  him  acknowledge,  that,  whilst  Bancroft, 
a  Unitarian,  had  nothing  to  say  of  the  Presbyterians,  except  that 
they  were  a  little  "  gloomy"  or  so,  the  friends,  yea  the  fathers  of 
the  Church,  have  quite  a  different  tale  to  tell. 

But  the  question,  after  all,  is  not  whether  Presbyterians  are,  or 
are  not,  less  moral  than  other  denominations.  I  am  willing  to 
admit  that  they  are  as  moral  as  others ;  and  that,  as  regards  the 
"  outside  of  the  platter,"  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  the  keeping  of 
the  Sabbath,  and  the  censuring  of  their  neighbours  for  not  being, 
and  in  the  same  way,  as  good  as  themselves; — the  saints  among 
the  Presbyterians,  male  and  female,  are  the  strictest  moralists  that 
have  appeared  in  the  world — since  the  days  of  the  Pharisees.  But 
the  question  is,  what  motive  for  holiness  is  held  forth ;  what 
ability  to  be  virtuous  is  renognised  in  the  Presbyterian  creed  ? 
Men,  in  that  system,  are  saved  by  election,  and  damned  by  pre- 
destination; and  their  works,  good  or  bad,  were  "fore-ordained" 
from  all  eternity.  Where  is  the  motive  to  morality  in  this  sys- 
tem ;  where  is  the  freedom  of  human  agency,  necessary  to  a  moral 
action,  recognised?  No  where.  EVERY  THING  is  eternally, 
omnipotently,  immutably  "fore-ordained."  Then  where  is  free- 
dom ?  Let  the  gentleman  answer  this.  I  shudder  at  the  conse- 
quences of  this  doctrine,  in  relation  to  the  attributes  of  the  good  and 
just  Deity.  And  no  wonder,  when  I  see  Calvin  advancing,  as  a 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  that  "  it  is  not  absurd  to  assign  the  same 
CRIME  (suppose  murder)  to  God,  to  Satan,  and  to  man.  (1) 
When  I  see  him  refuting,  or  attempting  to  refute  those  who  main- 
tain, that  God  only  permits  the  existence  of  evil,  and  the  com- 
mission of  crime,  and  asserting,  that  he  (God)  positively  wills 

(1)  Institutes,  Lib.  2.  Chap.  IV. 


399 

and  ordains  the  commission  of  crimes,  so  as  to  be  called  the 
*'  author  of  them." 

"  Et  jam  satis  aperte  ostendi,  DEUM  vocari  omnium  eorum 
(criminum)  AUCTOREM,  qux  isti  censores  volunt  otioso  tantura 
ejus  permissu  contingerey 

"  /  have  shoivn  already^  ivith  sufficient  clearness,''''  says  he, 
"  THAT  God  is  called  the  AUTHOR  of  those  (crimes,)  which 
these  censors  will  have,  as  happening  only  by  his  indolent  per- 
mission.'" (1) 

It  is  no  pleasure  to  me,  sir,  to  make  these  exhibitions  of  what 
it  must  be  painful  to  the  feelings  of  Presbyterians  to  read,  but 
even  they  cannot  justly  censure  me,  for  spreading  out  a  doctrinal 
principle  of  their  religion,  which,  if  applied  in  practice,  would 
sap  the  foundations  of  public  and  private  virtue.  When  Presby- 
terian ministers  have  relinquished  the  preaching  of  ^^ peace  and 
good  will  among  men,"  and  not  content  with  enjoying  the  rights 
of  conscience,  themselves,  are  endeavouring  to  deprive  their  Ro- 
man Catholic  fellow-citizens  of  that  sacred  right,  by  firing  the 
passions  of  the  multitude — the  ignorant  multitude,  into  the  belief, 
that  by  destroying  our  property,  as  well  as  our  character,  they 
would  be  doing  a  service  to  God  and  to  their  country — it  is  time  to 
advise  the  true  lovers  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  of  the  princi- 
ples of  doctrine  by  which  they  are  actuated.  Let  them  only  suc- 
ceed to  remove  one  tile  from  the  sacred  edifice  of  religious  free- 
dom, whose  vaulted  roof  is  ample  enough  to  protect  all,  and  as 
time  rolls  on,  not  a  stone  upon  a  stone  will  remain,  down  to  its 
deepest  foundation. 

Here  are  two  principles  which  are  enough  to  move  the  world. 
The  one,  that  their  salvation  being  dependent  on  the  decree  of 
God,  cannot  be  secured  nor  aided  by  virtue — (if  it  can,  let  the 
gentleman  say  so) — cannot  be  defeated  or  jeoparded  by  crime — 
if  it  can,  again,  let  him  say  so. 

The  other  principle  is,  that  they  avow  it  as  an  obligation  im- 
posed on  them  by  Almighty  God,  to  "  remove  all  false  wor- 
ship, and  all  monuments"  of  what  they  are  arrogantly  pleased 
to  call  "idolatry;"  and  this  "according  to  each  one's  place 
AND  CALLING."  Not  Only  Catholic  Churches  and  Convents,  but 
"  ALL  FALSE  WORSHIP."  In  this  supposcd  commandment,  (for 
God  never  made  a  commandment  for  Presbyterians,  which  he  did 
not  make  equally  for  all  denominations,)  is  to  be  found  the  solu- 
tion of  that  restlessness,  that  turbulence  and  domineering,  which 
has  stood  forth  in  the  uniform  history  of  the  Presbyterians,  as  a 
moral  problem  exciting  the  curiosity  of  those  who  were  unac- 
quainted with  the  doctrinal  principle  from  which  it  emanated. 
Suppose  each  denomination  were  to  make  for  itself  such  an  obli- 
gation, and  then  say,  that  God  had  imposed  it,  what  would  be  the 

(1)  Institutes,  Lib.  1,  Chap.  XVIII.,  Sec.  3. 


400 

consequence,  on  the  hypothesis,  that  all  should  try,  as  all  arc 
bound,  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God? 

The  gentleman  is  much  annoyed  by  the  uniform  language  of 
intolerance  and  presumption,  found  in  all  the  Confessions  of  Faith, 
of  the  Calvinistic  Churches,  as  exhibited  in  my  last  speech.  Those 
doctrines  unequivocally  stated  in  their  standards,  if  reduced  to 
practice,  would  not  leave  another  denomination  in  the  land.  And 
in  this,  they  are  not  a  particle  more  inimical  to  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  than  the  present  Confession,  the  single  clause  making  it 
their  duty,  imposed  by  God  himself,  to  "remove  all  false  wor- 
ship," even  in  the  United  States,  being  equivalent  to  all  the  ty- 
ranny over  conscience,  expressed  in  the  creeds  of  other  times,  and 
other  countries.  I  refer  the  reader  to  those  documents,  and  re- 
quest him  to  consider  what  consequences  they  would  lead  to,  if 
reduced  to  practice. 

The  gentleman's  only  defence  is,  that  some  passages  in  those 
creeds  have  been  left  out  of  the  American  Confession;  as  I  never 
failed  to  mention.  To  this  defence  I  have  to  make  a  few  observa- 
tions in  reply,  which  will  show  that  it  is  perfectly  nugatory.  1st, 
The  difference  is  only  in  words,  the  doctrine,  as  I  have  shown, 
being  substantially  the  same  in  all.  2d.  The  omission  of  a  few 
phrases  in  the  genuine  and  original  Confessions  of  Faith,  Avhich 
would  have  alarmed  the  friends  of  civil  and  religious  freedom  in 
this  country,  by  their  naked  arrogance,  is  no  proof  that  the  doc- 
trine expressed  by  them  has  been  rejected  or  condemned  as  hereti- 
cal. The  gentleman,  indeed,  has  said  that  they  were  heretical  in 
religion  as  well  as  in  politics.  But  he  has  given  no  proof.  You 
may  imagine  how  hard  he  is  pressed,  when  he  throws  all  Presby- 
terians overboard,  as  believers  in  a  heretical  doctrine,  except 
those  of  the  United  States,  since  the  Revolution.  And  yet  the 
same  doctrine  for  which  he  condemns  them,  is  substantially  and 
unequivocally  expressed  in  their  creed  at  the  present  day,  as  I 
have  already  established.  According  to  him,  the  Calvins,  the 
Knoxes,  the  Lightfoots,  the  whole  Assembly  of  Westminster, 
that  framed  the  standards,  were  all,  in  so  much,  heretics.  Now 
it  is  a  pity,  that  after  such  a  generous  immolation  of  Presbyterian 
fathers,  still  his  argument  should  fail.  Why  ?  Because  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  this  country,  regards  those  Presbyterian 
Churches  of  other  times  and  countries,  whose  creeds  I  quoted  in 
my  last  speech,  as  sound  in  the  faith.  As  such,  they  hold  com- 
munion with  them,  proving  thereby,  that  the  Presbyterians  of  this 
country  have  not  condemned  those  creeds,  although  their  perse- 
cuting clauses  are  not  expressed  in  print,  as  fully  as  they  had 
been  before  the  American  Revolution.  This  the  gentleman  will 
not  venture  to  deny,  and  his  admission  of  it  is  fatal  to  his  defence. 
But  again,  when  ministers  of  those  churches  are  admitted  into  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  /??,  this  cuuiitry,  are  they  required  to  renounce 
and  condemn  those  doctrines  which  are  omitted  in  the  present  re- 


401 

publican  standard  i  They  are  not.  This  is  equally  fatal  to  the 
gentleman's  defence.  And  let  him  not  affect  to  tell  us  any  more 
that  the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterians  have  been  reformed  since 
the  Revolution ;  these  facts  prove  that  on  the  doctrine  of  intoler- 
ance, the  Presbyterians  of  the  United  States  have  condemned  no- 
thing in  those  Confessions  of  Faith  of  England,  Scotland,  Geneva, 
Holland,  or  elsewhere,  which  I  quoted  in  my  last  speech.  And 
yet,  in  opposition  to  these  facts,  the  gentleman  has  given  up,  and 
virtually  denounced  as  heretics,  those  who  are  regarded  by  the 
Presbyterian  Church  now,  and  in  this  country,  as  sound  and  or- 
thodox, whilst  they  are  J^nown  to  hold  the  doctrines  which  he 
says  have  been  rejected!!  Had  I  not  reason,  therefore,  to  say, 
that  whenever  a  man  stands  forth  to  defend  or  advocate  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  or  the  rights  of  conscience,  and  at  the  same  time 
professes  belief  in  the  Presbyterian  religion,  he  attempts  to  re- 
concile contradiction,  and  renders  himself  necessarily  and  su- 
premely ridiculous. 

The  feature  which  was  essentially  wanting  to  the  argument 
against  the  Catholic  Church,  is  the  fact,  that  persecution  was 
enjoined  by  doctrine.  That  Catholic  states,  and  Catholic  writers 
of  great  eminence,  have  advocated  principles  adverse  to  liberty  of 
conscience,  is  not  disputed.  That  other  Catholic  states  and  wri- 
ters have  supported  opposite  principles,  is  what  the  gentleman 
will  not  venture  to  deny.  But,  on  the  other  side,  this  is  not  the 
case.  All  the  blood  that  has  been  shed  by  Presbyterians,  has  been 
shed  on  a  principle  of  doctrine.  This  constitutes  the  difTerence^ 
I  do  not  say,  that  the  Presbyterians  are  persecutors  in  this  coun- 
try ;  but  I  do  say,  that  in  this,  they  act  in  opposition  to  their  doc- 
trine, as  stated  in  all  their  Confessions  of  Faith — including  the 
one  that  obliges  them  to  remove  "  all  false  worship." 

We  shall  now  see  the  effects  of  these  doctrines  in  countries  in 
which  they  have  been  reduced  to  practice.  Calvin  is  the  father 
and  founder  of  the  Presbyterian  religion.  He  is  one  of  the  great 
reformers.  His  praise  is  in  all  the  Churches.  His  doctrine  on  this 
subject  is  what  is  found  in  the  Confessions  of  Faith  ; — his  conduct, 
in  practising  that  doctrine,  shall  be  the  evidence  of  lis  friendship  to 
civil  and  religious  liberty.  I  shall  content  myself  with  stating  a 
few  principal  facts,  omitting  many  circumstances  calculated  to 
heighten  the  atrocity  of  the  proceedings.  I  shall  quote  also  from 
Protestant  historians. 

A  man  of  the  name  of  Gruet,  in  Geneva,  for  exercising  liberty 
of  conscience,  and  calling  Calvin  the  "  new  Pope,"  was  put  to 
death  in  1550.  (1)  Sebastian  Castalio,  master  of  the  public  school 
of  Geneva,  for  using  the  liberty  of  thought  and  speech  against 
Calvin's  "unconditional  predestination,"  was  deposed  from  his 
office,  and  banished  from  the  city.  (2)     Jerome  Bolsec,  for  differ- 

(1)  Mosheim,  vol.  ii.  p.  125.  (2)  Ibid. 

51 


402 

ing  in  opinion  from  Calvin,  was  imprisoned  first,  and  afterwards 
sent  into  banishment.  (1)  Jacque  de  Bourgoyne,  a  nobleman,  to 
*'  avoid  Calvin's  vengeance,"  says  Mosheim,  for  having  endea- 
voured to  save  Bolsec,  removed  from  Geneva,  and  passed  the  re- 
mainder of  his  days  in  rural  retreat.  (2)  Who  understood  Cal- 
vinism better  than  Calvin^  And  his  practice  is  the  best  com- 
mentary on  the  second  commandment,  which  obliges  all  Presby- 
terians, by  the  commandment  of  God,  to  "remove  all  false 
WORSHIP."  Calvin  fulfilled  this  commandment,  by  "  removing" 
the  "  false  worshippers,"  which  amounts  to  the  same.  These  in- 
stances of  persecution  and  death  for  conscience'  sake,  are  gene- 
rally lost  sight  of  in  magnitude  of  the  horror  with  which  the 
mind  is  filled  by  the  execution  of  Servetus,  and  its  circumstances. 
I  admit,  that  he  was  a  heretic,  but  in  this  he  was  only  like  Calvin 
himself.  It  was  this  man's  misfortune  to  have  detected  and  ex- 
posed several  mistakes  and  errors  in  Calvin's  Institutes,  which 
inspired  this  Pope  of  Geneva  with  such  hatred,  that  he  declared, 
writing  to  Viret  and  Farel,  that  "  if  ever  this  heretic  (Servetus) 
should  fall  into  his  hands,  he  would  order  it  so,  that  it  should  cost 
him  his  life."  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  Servetus  was  not  in 
any  manner  subject  to  the  laws  of  Geneva,  either  civil  or  reli- 
gious. But,  passing  on  his  way  as  a  traveller,  he  was  about  to 
cross  the  lake  to  Zurich,  and  whilst  waiting  for  a  boat,  was  be- 
trayed to  Calvin,  who  had  him  arrested  and  thrown  into  prison. 
This  was  on  a  Sunday,  when  it  was  unlawful  to  arrest  any  one, 
except  for  a  capital  crime.  But  Calvin,  in  opposition  to  the  laws 
of  God,  the  laws  of  the  state,  the  rights  of  nations,  and  the  voice  of 
human  nature,  had  him  seized  on  the  spot.  His  situation  is  des- 
cribed by  a  Protestant  historian  in  the  following  words:  '•^  Far 
from  his  own  country,  fallen  into  the  hands  of  cruel  strangers, 
all  under  the  influence  of  Calvin,  his  avowed  enemy,  who  bore 
him  a  mortal  hatred;  stript  of  all  his  property;  confined  in  a 
damp  prison,  and  neglected  till  he  was  almost  eaten  up  with 
vermin,  denied  an  advocate,  and  loaded  ivith  every  indignity 
that  barbarity  could  invent.  (3)  The  fate  of  Servetus  was,  that 
he  was  burned  to  death  by  Calvin's  procurement,  on  the  27th  of 
October,  1553.  Such  is  the  practice  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine, 
in  regard  to  heretics,  as  exemplified  in  the  life  of  its  author,  Cal- 
vin himself.  To  show  that  his  cruel  heart  never  felt  the  sting  of 
remorse  for  this  murder,  which  was,  of  course,  "  fore-ordained" 
in  the  "  decrees  of  God,"  he  wrote  a  book  entitled,  "  A  faithful 

ACCOUNT  OF  the    ERRORS    OF    MlCHAEL  SeRVETUS,  IN  WHICH    IT    IS 
PROVED,     THAT     HERETICS    OUGHT     TO    BE     RESTRAINED    WITH    THE 

SWORD."     Not  only  this;   in  his  letter  to  the  Marques  de  Poet, 
dated  September  30th,   1561,  he  says,  "  Honour,  glory,  and 

(1)  Mosheim,  vol.  ii.  p.  125.  (3)  P.  126. 

(3)  Robinson's  Eccles.  Researches,  p.  340. 


403 

riches  shall  be  the  reward  of  your  pains:  but,  above  all,  do  not 
fail  to  rid  the  country  of  those  zealous  scoundrels,  who  stir  up 
the  country  to  revolt  against  us.     Such  monsters  should  be 

EXTERMINATED,  AS  I  HAVE  EXTERMINATED  MiCHAEL  SeRVETUS, 

THE  Spaniard." 

Such  was  the  man,  by  whom  the  Presbyterian  religion  was 
founded.  And  in  every  country  in  which  that  religion  has  pre- 
vailed, and  become  supreme  in  political  power,  its  doctrines  have 
sanctioned  persecution,  and  its  hands  have  been  stained  with 
blood.  I  state  this  fact  on  the  faith  of  history,  and  if  the  gentle- 
man can  point  out  a  single  exception,  I  shall  acknowledge,  that 
in  one  instance  the  statement  is  incorrect. 

Let  us  begin  with  the  Calvinistic  cantons  of  Switzerland.  If  the 
doctrines  of  the  Calvinists  had  authorized  the  persecution  of  only 
Catholics,  its  advocates  might  claim  sympathy  from  the  other 
Protestant  denominations.  But  the  fact  is,  that  all  sects  were 
alike  to  it.  It  claimed  the  right  to  dictate  to  men's  consciences ; 
and  wo  be  to  those  who  were  not  prepared  to  fall  down  and  wor- 
ship its  arrogant  pretensions  to  infallibility.  In  the  Cantons  of 
Switzerland,  it  punished  with  fine,  such  of  its  own  citizens  as 
should  exercise  the  rights  of  conscience  in  embracing  the  Baptist 
religion.     Baptists  who  were  not  citizens,  were  "banished  with 

THE  express   threat,  THAT  IF  THEY    RETURNED  THEY     SHOULD    BE 

DROWNED  TOGETHER  WITH  THEIR  LEADERS."  (1)  In  the  Cau- 
ton  of  Zurich,  it  was  decreed  that  not  only  the  Baptists  themselves, 
but  those  who  protected  them,  should  be  put  to  death.  Those 
who  would  not  inform  against  them,  were  condemned  as  perju- 
rers to  imprisonment  and  exile.  "2>e  punir  de  mort,  soit  les 
Anabaptistes,  soit  ceux  qui  les  protegeroient :  et  d^emprisonner, 
et  de  banner  meme,  comme  des  parjures,  ceux  qui  ne  les  decele- 
roient  pas.""  (2)  Some  of  these  wretched  Baptists  having  return- 
ed to  the  country,  were  actually  put  to  death  by  drowning,  **  a 
cause  de  leur  opiniatrete,  on  les  noya,^''  (3)  In  Berne,  the  pun- 
ishment against  the  Baptists  was,  that  the  men  should  be  behead- 
ed, and  the  women  drowned.  In  1566,  Gentilis  was  beheaded 
at  Berne,  for  judging  for  himself,  in  opposition  to  Calvinistic  in- 
fallibility. And  as  late  as  1633,  Anthony,  a  minister  at  Geneva, 
WAS  BURNED  TO  DEATH  for  the'samc  crime.  (4)  This  is  the  effec- 
tual fulfilment  of  the  second  commandment,  "removing  all  false 
worship."  This  is  the  practical  exemplification  of  the  doctrine 
that  turns  the  magistrates  into  "  nursing  fathers  to  the  church." 
It  is  remarkable,  that  whilst  in  Holland  they  put  the  heretics  to 
death  by  the  block;  in  Geneva  by  the  stake;  in  New  England  by 
hanging;  they  selected  drowning  for  the  Baptists  in  Switzer- 

(1)  Ruchets'  Hist,  of  Refor.  in  Switzerland,  vol.  1.  p.  556. 

(2)  Idem,  vol.  iii.  p.  99.  (3)  Idpm,  vol.  iv.  p.  218. 
(4)  Priestley's  Church  Hist.  vol.  iii.  p.  359. 


404 

land,  as  if  they  would  pun  on  the  supposed  heresy  of  then'  vic- 
tims, by  the  manner  of  their  execution. 

The  second  saint  in  the  Presbyterian  Calendar,  is  John  Knox. 
He  was  what  may  be  termed,  legate  a  latere^  to  the  "  Pope  of 
Geneva."  He  was  the  principal  framer  of  Presbyterian  doctrine 
and  discipline  in  Scotland,  and,  like  his  master,  he  held  these 
"tenets  of  faith,"  which  made  it  his  duty  to  be  a  man  of  blood. 
This  is  not  the  place  to  enter  on  the  conduct  or  character  of  Car- 
dinal Beaton,  who  is  by  no  means  regarded  either  as  a  saint  or  a 
martyr  in  the  Catholic  Church.  He  was  a  man  who  fell  by  hands 
of  assassins;  and  John  Knox,  according  lo  Doctor  Heylin,  cha- 
racterizes that  cold-blooded  assassination  as  a  "godly  act." 

Of  course,  according  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  this  assassina- 
tion was  one  of  those  things  which  God  had  "fore-ordained" 
in  his  "  eternal  decrees."  This  Knox's  understanding  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  religion  is  clear,  not  only  from  his 
calling  the  murder  of  Beaton  a  "  godly  act,"  but  also  from  those 
principles  which  he  laid  down  as  universal  tenets  of  faith. 

"  Ye  are  bound  to  REMOVE  from  honour,  and  to 
PUNISH  WITH  DEATH  {if  the  crime  so  require)  such  as 

DECEIVE  THE  PEOPLE,  OR  DEFRAUD  THEM  OF  THAT  FOOD  OF  THEIR 
SOULS,  I  MEAN  God's  LIVELY  W0RD."(1) 

"  NONE  PROVOKING  THE  PEOPLE  TO  IDOLATRY  OUGHT  TO  BE 
EXEMPTED  FROM  THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  DEATH. "(2) 

"  The  PUNISHMENT  OF  SUCH  CRIMES  AS  ARE  IDOLATRY,  BLAS- 
PHEMY, AND  OTHERS  THAT  TOUCH  THE  MAJESTY  OF   GoD,  DOTH  NOT 

APPERTAIN    TO    THE    KINGS  AND    CHIEF    RULERS  ONLY BUT    TO  THE 

WHOLE  BODY  OF  THE  PEOPLE,  AND  TO  EVERY  MEMBER  OF  THE 
SAME. "(3) 

"  It  is  not  only  lawful  to  PUNISH  TO  THE  DEATH 

SUCH  AS  LABOUR  TO  SUBVERT    THE    TRUE  RELIGION,  BUT  THE   MAGIS- 
TRATES AND  PEOPLE  ARE  BOUND  SO  TO  DO,  unless  they 
will  provoke  the  wrath  of  god  against  themselves. "(4) 
"  Intimation  was  made  to  others,  as  to  the  abbot  of  Cor- 

RAGNEL,  THE  PARSON  OF  SaNGHAR,  AND  SUCH,  THAT  THEY  SHOULD 

neither  complain  to  the  queen  nor  council,  but  should 
execute  the  punishment  that  god  has  appointed  to  idola- 
ters in  his  word,  wherever  they  should  be  found. "(5) 

Here  we  see  the  true  origin  and  meaning  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  touching  the  duty  of  ths  "  magistrates"  as  "  nursing  fathers" 
to  the  church.  Here  we  see  the  true  and  original  meaning  of 
the  texts  of  Scripture,  still  preserved  in  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
directing  the  reader  to  those  punishments  which  "  God  had  ap- 
pointed to  idolaters  in  the  old  law."  Here  we  see,  not  only  the 
magistrates,  but  the  people  instructed,  in  the  name  of  the  insulted 

(1)  Appeal  to  Knox's  Hist,  of  Reform,  p.  10.         (2)  Idem,  p.  21. 

(3)  Idem,  p.  22.  (4)  Idem,  p.  25.  (5)  Knox's  Hist.,  p.  .S.52. 


405 

God,  tliat  not  only  tliey  may,  but  that  they  "  are  bound"  to  mur- 
der idolaters,  blasphemers,  and  such  as  by  "  false  worship"  do 
touch  the  divine  Majesty.  Here  we  see  the  true  meaning  and 
origin  of  the  Presbyterian  second  commandment,  about  "  detesting 
and  opposing  all  false  worship,  and,  according  to  each  one's  place 
and  calling,  removing  it  and  all  the  monuments  of  idolatry." 
Here  we  see  the  meaning  of  those  texts  which  we  find  even  in  the 
republican  edition  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  in  which  the 
Presbyterian  denomination  claims  the  authority  of  God  "  to  smite 
the  seven  nations  stronger  and  mightier  than  they,  and  to  show 
no  mercy  to  them."(l)  And  yet  the  gentleman  is,  or  affects  to  be, 
ignorant  of  the  meaning  of  those  passages  in  his  creed,  which  I 
have  pointed  out  as  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty.  These 
evidences  from  Geneva  and  Scotland  show  how  the  Presbyterian 
religion  came  to  have  followers,  and  by  what  kind  of  arguments 
it  maintained  itself.  They  show  what  reason  Houston  had  to 
say  that  it  made  but  little  progress  until  the  "  magistrates," 
*'  according  to  their  place  and  calling,"  became  "  nursing  fathers," 
and  set  about  "  removing  all  false  worship  and  all  the  monuments 
of  idolatry."  I  say  nothing  of  the  arrogance  of  this  creed,  which, 
founded,  as  it  avowedly  is,  on  private  opinion,  would  dare  to  pro- 
nounce as  a  settled  question,  that  the  religion  of  the  Roman 
Catholics  is  "idolatry,"  and  that  of  all  other  denominations 
*'  false  worship" — and  would  claim  for  its  own  members,  the  im- 
pudent right  to  "  remove"  them. 

I  beg,  sir,  the  attention  of  this  meeting  to  the  operation  of  the 
doctrine  here  stated,  and  which  the  gentleman  does  not  deny  to 
be  that  of  the  Presbyterian  creed.  I  have  already  exhibited  the 
reasons  why  it  was  in  peifect  accordance  with  the  Presbyterian 
religion  for  Dr.  Ely  to  aim  at  what  he  innocently  called  a 
"  Christian  party"  in  politics;  and  why,  good  man,  he  would 
prefer  a  "  sound  Presbyterian"  for  his  chief  magistrate.  When- 
ever that  project  shall  be  realized,  the  sleeping  doctrines  of  the 
second  commandment  will  awake  into  action  and  effect.  And 
here  it  is  that  the  seemingly  unmeaning  clause,  "  according  to  each 
one's  place  and  calling,"  will  explain  itself  in  irremediable  works 
of  destruction  to  civil  and  religious  liberty.  Does  the  gentleman 
say  that  this  is  Mr.  Hughes's  gratuitous  assertion?  fThen  let  the 
operation  of  the  doctrine,  when  it  was  reduced  to  practice,  be  its 
interpreter. 

We  have  already  seen  John  Knox,  the  founder  of  Presbyte- 
rianism  in  Scotland,  "  the  man  of  God,"  proclaiming  that  the 
people  and  magistrates  were  bound  to  put  to  death  such  as  they 
might  consider  to  be  guilty  of  blasphemy,  heresy,  or  idolatry." 
After  commencing  by  that  "  godly  act,"  the  assassination  of  Car- 
dinal Beaton,  the  progress  of  Calvinism  in  Scotland  was  traced 
by  that  of  sedition,  violence,  devastation  and  plunder.     But  once 

(I)  Deut.  vii. 


406 

fairly  established  on  the  ruins  of  a  religion  that  had  been  intro- 
duced by  peace  and  persuasion,  we  shall  see  the  operation  of  its 
doctrines.  There  was  a  "  Christian  party  in  politics,  and  the 
chief  magistrate  a  sound  Presbyterian;"  they  were  all  bound  to 
*'  remove  all  false  worship,  and  all  the  monuments  of  idolatry — 
each  according  to  his  place  and  calling." 

I  shall  quote  from  Lord  Kames's  Abridgement  of  the  Statute 
Law,  an  abstract,  as  published  in  the  Scotch  Magazine  for  Octo- 
ber, 1778. 

In  J581  it  was  enacted(l)  "That  all  professed  papists  be 

OBLIGED  TO  LEAVE  THE  KINGDOM  WITHIN  A  LIMITED  TIME,  UNLESS 
THEY  WILL  SUBSCRIBE  THE  CONFESSION  OF  FaITH  ;  AND  THAT  NONE 

SELL  OR  DISPERSE  POPISH  BOOKS  under  the  pain  of 

BANISH3IENT    AND    CONFISCATION    OF    MOVEABLES."       Is    DOt    this    a 

beautiful  specimen  of  the  Presbyterian  system,  "  according  to  each 
one's  place  and  calling?"  Here  is  the  amiable  practice  of  the 
doctrine  which  lies  dormant  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  since  the 
declaration  of  American  Independence.  But  why  dormant?  Be- 
cause the  genius  of  civil  and  religious  freedom  would  not  tolerate 
its  blasphemous  tyranny  over  thought  and  conscience. 

Again,  in  1587,  it  was  enacted, (2)  "That  professed  Jesuits 

AND  SEMINARY  PRIESTS,  FOUND  IN  ANY  PART  OF  THE  REALM, 
SHALL  BE  APPREHENDED,  PURSUED,  AND  INCUR  THE   PAIN    OF 

DEATH  AND  CONFISCATION  OF  MOVEABLES;— That 

whoever  WILLINGLY  AND  WITTINGLY  RECEIPTS  AND  SUPPLIES 
ANY  OF  THEM  FOR  THE  SPACE  OF  THREE  DAYS  AND  THREE 
NIGHTS  together,  OR  SEVERALLY  AT  THREE  TIMES,  SHALL 
INCUR  THE  TINSEL  OF  THEIR  LIFE-RENTS.  ThAT  ALL  SAYERS 
AND  hearers  of  MASS,  ALL  WHO  REFUSE  TO  RESORT  TO  THE  PREACH- 
ING OF  God's  word,  and  all  who  shall,  BY  REASONING, 
OR  DISPERSING  OF  BOOKS  OR  LETTERS,  endeavour  to 

PERSUADE  ANY  OF  HIS  MAJESTy's  SUBJECTS  TO  DECLINE  FROM  THE 
profession  of  the  true  RELIGION,  SHALL  INCUR  THE  TINSEL  OF 
THEIR  MOVEABLES  AND  OF  THEIR  LIFE-RENT." 

In  1593,(3)  it  was  enacted  "  That  the  receipters  aforesaid 

SHOULD,  FOR  THE  FIRST  FAULT,  LOSE  THEIR  MOVEABLES,  THEIR 
LIFE-RENT    FOR    THE    SECOND,  AND    FOR    THE    THIRD,    INCUR    THE 

PAIN  OF  TREASON."     We  all  kuow  what  that  was. 

An  act  passed  in  the  year  1587,(4)  ordered  "  Papistical  BOOKS 
to  he  searched  for  and  destroyed  by  the  magistrates  of  burghs, 
with  concourse  of  the  minister ;  and  those  who  import  the  same 
to  be  pmnished  in  their  persons  and  goods,  at  the  king's 
wilV 

"  The  saying  of  mass,  receipting  of  Jesuits,  seminary  priests, 
trafficking  papists,  against  the  king's  majesty  and  religion,  pro- 
fessed within  the  realm,  declared  to  infer  the  PAIN  OF  TIlEA- 
SON,  both  against  the  Jesuits,  mass-priests,  trafficking  papists 

(I)  Chap.  106.         (2)  Idem,  24.         (3)  Idem,  168.         (4)  Idem,  25. 


407 

end  the  receipters  of  them ;  but  in  case  of  satisfaction  given  to 
the  king  and  kirk,  the  receipters  not  to  be  liable.^\\) 

By  acts  passed  in  the  years  1594,  ch.  196,  and  in  1607,  ch.  1, 
it  was  enacted,  "  That  all  wilful  HEARERS  OF  MASS  and 
concealers  of  the  same,  be  CAPITALLY  punished,  and  their 
goods  and  gear  escheated  to  the  king's  use." 

"  Presbyteries  appointed  to  summon  before  them  all  papists, 
and  those  suspected  of  papistry,  in  order  to  satisfy  the  kirk,  and 
if  they  compear  not,  or  refuse  to  give  satisfaction,  they  are  to 
be  dilated  to  the  privy  council;  who  must  direct  letters,  charging 
the  said  papists,  and  those  suspected  of  papistry,  to  appear  before 
them,  and  to  produce  sufficient  certificates  of  due  satisfaction 
given  to  the  kirk,  under  the  pain  of  rebellion,  and  of  being 
PUT  TO  THE  HORN :  and  if  they  fail  therein  that  they  he  de- 
nounced, and  both  their  single  and  life-rent  escheat  belong  to 
the  king.  And  whosoever  receipts,  supplies  or  entertains  such 
persons  after  denunciation  aforesaid,  shall  also  incur  the  penalty 
of  single  or  life-rent  escheat.  (2) 

Here  we  see  the  doctrine  of  the  gentleman's  second  command- 
ment— after  denouncing  penalties  against  those  who  should  dare 
to  exercise  liberty  of  thought  or  conscience — going  to  extinguish 
the  feelings  of  human  nature,  by  involving  those  who  should  show 
them  hospitality  or  kindness,  in  the  same  or  kindred  punishments. 

In  the  year  1600(3)  it  was  enacted  that  ^^  the  statutes  made 
against  Jesuits,  seminary  priests,  sayers  and  hearers  of  mass, 
and  their  receipters,  should  be  put  in  due  execution;  with  the 
following  explanation: — That  the  former  acts  shall  be  extended 
against  the  hearers  and  sayers  of  mass,  without  exception. 
That  every  person  who  harbours  a  Jesuit,  seminary  priest, 
^c,  shall  be  subjected  to  the  penalties  of  the  former  statutes,  as 
wilfully  incurring  the  same,  after  being  warned  by  public  inti- 
mation." 

"  A  PREMIUM  of  five  hundred  marks  was  ordained  by  an  act, 
passed  in  1700,(4)  for  DISCOVERING  and  SEIZING  any 
priest,  Jesuit,  or  trafficking  papist  that  may  be  convicted." 

These  are  beautiful  specimens  of  liberty  of  conscience,  as 
understood  by  Presbyterians  under  the  second  commandment  of 
the  Decalogue. 

In  1700,(5)  it  was  enacted,  "  ^  «  man  is  held  and  reputed 
to  be  a  Jesuit,  priest,  or  trafficking  papist;  or  if  it  be  made  out 
that  he  has  changed  his  name  or  surname,  either  of  these 
circumstances,  with  his  refusing  to  purge  himself  of  popery, 
shall  be  a  sufficient  cause  for  the  privy  council  to  banish  him 

(1)  Acts  passed  in  1592,  ch.  122;  in  1607,  ch.  1 ;  and  in  1601,  ch.  8. 

(2)  Act  of  1594,  ch.  197.  (3)  Chap.  18.  (4)  Idem,  3. 
(5)  Idem,  3. 


408 

forth  of  the  realm,  never  to  return,  under  pain  of  DEATH, 

being  a  papist." 

In  otiier  cases,  even  under  pagans,  a  man  was  presumed  inno- 
cent until  he  was  proved  guilty.  Here,  he  was  condemned,  if  he 
did  not  prove  his  innocence,  under  pain  of  BANISHMENT  and 
DEATH.  And  what  was  the  crime?  It  was  the  crime  of  wor- 
shipping God,  according  to  the  dictate  of  his  conscience  ! !  These 
instances  axe  enough  to  prove  the  practical  operation  of  the  second 
commandment.  But  they  prove  more:  they  show  that,  without 
the  reasoning  powers,  the  convincing  influence,  the  persuasive 
eloquence  of  DEATH-INFLICTING  LAWS,  the  Presbyterians 
could  not  have  induced  the  Scotch  people  to  abandon  the  religion 
that  had  civilized  them,  for  the  blasphemous  doctrine  of  blind  pre- 
destination, and  the  tyrannical  dogma,  authorizing  Calvinists  to 
oppress  the  thoughts  and  consciences  of  other  men — "  according 
to  each  one's  place  and  calling." 

The  doctrines  of  Calvinism  were  no  less  fruitful  on  this  side  of 
the  Atlantic,  than  they  were  in  Scotland,  England,  and  on  the 
continent  of  Europe.  The  Puritans  had  been  themselves  the 
victims  of  Protestant  persecution,  and  one  would  suppose,  that 
their  own  sufferings  for  conscience'  sake,  should  have  taught  them 
mercy  towards  others.  But  their  conduct  alone,  after  their  arrival 
on  these  shores,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  pure  Calvinism  and 
gentle  mercy,  can  never  amalgamate  in  the  human  breast. 

The  gentleman  will,  no  doubt,  try  to  disown  the  Puritans,  as 
he  has  denied  all  his  religious  forefathers,  down  to  the  last  amend- 
ment of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  But  it  will  not  do.  In  every 
point  relating  to  the  duty  of  the  "magistrates  as  nursing  fathers," 
in  every  point  involving  the  question  of  civil  and  religious  liberty, 
their  doctrines  were  identically  the  same.  Nkal,  in  his  History 
of  the  Puritans,  tells  us,  vol.  iii.  p.  155,  that  from  the  meeting  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  the  -'name  of  Puritans  was  to  be 
sunk,"  and  that  of  "Presbyterians"  substituted.  This  shows 
that  down  to  that  period  the  two  appellations  were  common  in  Eng- 
land. So  that  the  Puritans  of  New  England  were  English  Pres- 
byterians, who  had  left  the  country  before  the  meeting  of  the  West- 
minster divines.  Their  Church  government  was  different  from 
that  of  Presbyterians,  but  their  doctrine  was  on  these  subjects  the 
same.  They,  too,  held  it  as  a  tenet  of  faith,  that  they  were  bound 
to  "remove,  according  to  each  one's  place  and  calling,  all  false 
woiship,  and  all  the  monuments  of  idolatry."  And  their  history 
shows  the  practice  to  which  this  doctrine  leads.  In  the  United 
States,  since  the  civil  government  has  guaranteed  that  the  civil 
and  religious  rights  of  all  shall  be  equal,  this  doctrine  is  harmless, 
because  it  is  impracticable.  It  is  still,  however,  declared  lo  be  a 
commandment  of  God,  and  it  is  possible  that,  as  soon  as  the  Con- 
stitution will  permit,  the  saints  will  return  to  the  observance  of  it. 
But  when  it  reigned  predominant  among  the  Puritans  of  New 


409 

England,  what  were  its  effects  on  men  who  were  guilty  oi' at te^npt- 
ing  to  think  for  theinselves,  or  of  worshipping  Almighty  God, 
according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  conscience  ?     They  were 

"IMPRISONMENT,"  "FINING,"  "  CONFISCATION  OF  GOODS,"  "BANISH- 
ING," "UNMERCIFUL  SCOURGING,"  "BURNING  WITH  HOT  IRONS," 
"CUTTING  OFF  EARS,"  aild  "  DESTROYING  LIFE  BY  THE  IGNOMINI- 
OUS GALLOWS."  Here,  again,  we  shall  take  Protestant  authority, 
that  of  Sewel,  in  his  History  of  the  Quakers.  Now  if  there 
ever  was  a  denomination  entitled  to  be  tolerated,  it  was  this. 
Their  errors,  above  those  of  all  other  sects,  were  purely  errors  of 
the  mind,  exclusively  matters  between  themselves  and  God.  In 
all  the  relations  of  life,  their  demeanour  was  that  of  meekness, 
simplicity,  integrity,  and  peace.  They  appeared  with  none  of  that 
evangelical  pugnacity  with  which  Presbyterianism  fought  its  way 
into  the  places  of  power,  and  overthrew  old  tyrannies,  to  establish 
young  tyrannies  on  their  ruins.  And  yet  the  stripes  which  per- 
secution had  inflicted  on  the  Puritans,  were  scarcely  healed,  when 
they  themselves  began  to  wield  the  lash  against  the  inoffensive 
Quakers.  "  These  detestable  scenes  of  more  than  savage  barbarity, 
says  a  Protestant  writer,  began  in  the  month  called  July,  1656. 
Mary  Fisher,  and  Ann  Austin,  having  arrived  in  the  road  before 
Boston,  the  Deputy  Governor  Bellingham,  had  them  brought  on 
shore,  and  committed  to  prison  as  Quakers.  They  were  stript 
naked  under  pretence  of  knowing  whether  they  were  witches ;  and 
in  this  search,  (says  Sewel,)  they  were  so  barbarously  misused, 
that  modesty  forbids  to  mention  it.  After  about  five  weeks'  im- 
prisonment, they  were  sent  back  to  Old  England,  THEIR  BEDS 
AND  BIBLES  BEING  TAKEN  BY  THE  .lAILOR  FOR  HIS 
FEES."(1) 

"  Scarce  a  month  after,  eight  others  of  those  called  Quakers, 
came ;  they  were  locked  up  in  the  same  manner  as  the  former ; 
and  after  about  eleven  weeks'  stay,  they  were  sent  back.  John 
Endicot  bid  them  '  TAKE  HEED  THAT  YE  BREAK  NOT 
OUR  ECCLESIASTICAL  LAWS,  FOR  .THEN  YE  ARE 
SURE  TO  STRETCH  BY  THE  HALTER.' " 

"  Then  a  law  was  made  to  prohibit  all  masters  of  ships  from 
bringing  any  Quakers  into  that  jurisdiction.  Nicholas  Upsal,  a 
member  of  the  Church,  and  a  man  of  unblameable  character,  for 
speaking  against  such  proceedings,  was  fined  twenty-three  pounds, 
and  IMPRISONED  also,  for  not  coming  to  Church;  next  they  ban- 
ished him  out  of  their  jurisdiction;  and  though  a  weakly  old 
man,  yet  he  was  forced  to  depart  in  the  winter.  Nicholas  after- 
wards, met  with  an  Indian  Prince,  who  having  understood  how 
he  had  been  used,  offered  to  make  him  a  warm  house;  niid  further 
said,  'WHAT  A  GOD  HAVE  THE  ENGLISH,  WHO  DEAL 
SO  WITH  ONE  ANOTHER  ABOUT  THEIR  GOD  !'  "(2) 

(!)  Sewel's  History,  p.  157.  (2)  Idem,  pp.  168,  169. 

52 


410 

"  The  foUoAving  year,  1657,  Anne  Burden,  and  Mary  Dyer,  were 
imprisoned  at  Boston ;  and  Mary  Clark,  for  ivarning  these  per- 
secutors to  desist  from  their  iniquity,  was  nnmercif'uliy  rewarded 
with  TWENTY  STRIPES  OF  A  THREE-CORDED  WHIP, 
ON  HER  NAKED  BACK,  and  detained  in  prison  about  three 
months,  in  the  winter  season.  The  cords  of  these  whips  were 
commonly  as  thick  as  a  man's  little  finger,  having  each  some 
knots  at  the  end." 

"  Christopher  Holder,  and  JohnCopeland,  WERE  WHIPT  AT 
BOSTON,  the  same  year,  each  thirty  stripes,  with  a  knotted  whip 
of  three  cords,  the  hangman  measuring  his  ground  and  fetching 
the  strokes  with  all  the  force  he  could,  which  so  cruelly  cut  their 
flesh,  that  a  woman  seeing  it,  fell  down  for  dead.  Then  they 
were  locked  up  in  prison,  and  kept  three  days  ivithoutfood,  or  so 
much  as  a  drink  of  water,  and  detained  in  prison  for  nine  weeks, 
in  the  cold  winter  season,  without  lire,  bed,  or  straw." 

"Lawrence  and  Cassandra  Southick,  and  their  son  Josiah,  being 
carried  to  Boston,  were  all  of  them,  notwithstanding  the  old  age 
of  the  two,  sent  to  the  House  of  Correction,  and  whipt  with  cords, 
as  those  before,  in  the  coldest  season  of  the  year,  and  had  taken 
from  them  to  the  value  of  four  pounds  ten  shillings,  for  not  com- 
ing to  Church.'''' 

"In  the  year  1658,  a  law  was  made,  which  besides  imposing 
heavy  penalties  and  imprisonments,  extended  to  working  in  the 
House  of  Correction,  SEVERE  WHIPPING,  CUTTING  OFF 
EARS,  and  BORING  THROUGH  THEIR  TONGUES  WITH 
A  RED  HOT  IRON,  whether  male  or  female,  and  such  like  in- 
human barbarities."  (1) 

"The  same  year  William  Brend,  and  William  Leddra,  came  to 
Newberry;  thence  they  were  carried  to  Boston  to  the  House  of 
Correction,  to  work  there;  but  they,  unwilling  to  submit  thereto, 
were  kept  five  days  without  any  food,  and  then  beaten  twenty 
strokes  with  a  three-corded  whip.'" 

"  Next  they  weraput  into  irons,  neck  and  heels,  so  close  together', 
that  there  was  no  more  room  left  betweeyi,  than  for  the  lock  that 
fastened  them,  and  kept  in  that  situation  sixteen  liours,  and  then 
brought  to  the  mill  to  work ;  but  Brend  refusing,  was  beaten  by 
the  inhuman  jailor,  with  a  pitched  rope,  more  than  a  hundred 
strokes,  till  his  flesh  was  bruised  into  a  jelly,  his  body  turned  cold, 
and  for  some  time  he  had  neither  seeing,  feeling,  nor  hearing."  (2) 
The  parson,  John  Norton,  was  heard  to  say,  "WILLIAM 
BRENT  ENDEAVOURED  TO  BEAT  OUR  GOSPEL  ORDI- 
NANCES BLACK  AND  BLUE,  IF  THEN  HE  BE  BEATEN 
BLACK  AND  BLUE,  IT  IS  BUT  JUST  UPON  HIM;  and  I 
will  appear  in  the  behalf  of  him  that  did  so.''  (3) 

(1)  Sewel's  History,  p.  191.  (2)  Idem,  pp.  190,  192. 

(3)  Idem,  pp.  193,  194. 


411 

"  In  the  same  year,  John  Copeland,  Christopher  Holder,  and 
John  Rous,  were  taken  up,  and  in  a  private  manner,  HAD  THEIR 
RIGHT  EARS  CUT  OFF  BY  AUTHORITY,  and,  as  if  these 
inhuman  barbarities  were  not  sufficient,  John  Norton,  and  other 
parsons,  petitioned  for  a  law  to  banish  the  Quakers  ON  PAIN 
OF  DEATH.  The  petition  was  granted  October  20th,  1658,  by 
the  Court  of  Boston.     A  short  extract  of  the  law  is  as  follows  : 

"  Whereas,  there  is  a  pernicious  sect,  (commonly  called  Qua- 
kers,) do  take  upon  them  to  change  and  alter  the  received  lauda- 
ble customs  of  our  nation,  and  also  to  destroy  the  order  of  the 
Churches,  by  DENYING  ALL  ESTABLISHED.  FORMS  OF 
WORSHIP;  for  prevention  thereof,  this  Court  doth  order  and 
enact,  that  every  person  or  persons  being  convicted  to  be  of  the 
sect  of  the  Quakers,  shall  be  sentenced  to  be  BANISHED,  UPON 
PAIN  OF  DEATH."  (i) 

"  Daniel  and  Provided  Southick,  son  and  daughter  to  Lawrence 
and  Cassandra,  not  frequenting  the  assemblies  of  such  a  'perse- 
cuting generation,  were  fined  ten  pounds,  though  it  was  well 
known  they  had  no  estate,  their  parents  being  already  brought  to 
poverty  by  their  rapacious  persecutors.  To  get  this  money,  the 
General  Court  at  Boston  issued  out  an  order,  by  which  the  irea 
surers  of  the  several  counties  were  empowered  to  SELL  TPIE 
SAID  PERSONS  to  ANY  OF  THE  ENGLISH  NATION,  at 
VIRGINIA,  or  BARBADOES,  to  answer  the  said  finest 

"  William  Maslon,  at  Hampton,  was  fined  ten  pounds  for  two 
hooks  found  in  his  house;  Jive  pounds  for  riot  frequenting  their 
Church,  and  three  pounds  besides,  as  due  to  the  parson;  for 
which  fine,  he  had  taken  from  him  what  amounted  to  more  than 
tioenty  pounds.  Not  long  after,  above  a  thousand  pounds  were 
taken  from  some,  only  because  they  had  separated  themselves 
from  the  persecuting  church."  (2) 

^'Thomas  Prince,  Governor  of  Plymouth,  was  heard  to  say, 
that  in  his  conscience,  the  Quakers  were  such  a  people  as  deserv- 
ed to  be  destroyed,  they,  their  wives  and  children,  their  houses 
and  lands,  without  pity  or  mercy.  Humphrey  Norton,  at  New 
Haven,  for  being  a  Quaker,  WAS  SEVERELY  WHIPT,  and 
burnt  in  the  hand  with  the  letter  H,  to  signify  Heretic.''^ 

"The  unjust  and  bloody  sentence  of  DEATH  was  executed 
upon  William  Robinson,  and  Marmaduke  Stevenson,  the  27th 
October,  1659.  When  they  were  come  near  the  gallows,  the 
parson  (Wilson,)  tauntingly  said  to  Robinson,  'SHALL  SUCH 
JACKS  AS  YOU  COME  IN  BEFORE  AUTHORITY  WITH 
THEIR  HATS  ON  V  to  which  Robinson  replied,  '  Mind  you, 
mind  you,  it  is  for  the  not  putting  off  the  hat,  ive  are  put  to 
death.'' ''(3) 

"  The  persons  that  were  hanged  were  barbarously  used,  even 

(1)  Sewel's  Hist.  p.  218.  (2)  Idem,  p.  219.  (3)  Idem,  p.  22G. 


412 

their  shirts  were  ripped  off  with  a  knife,  and  their  naked  bodie?: 
cast  into  a  hole  that  was  dug,  without  any  covering,  and  parson 
Wilson  makes  a  ballad  on  them.  On  the  31st  of  the  third  month, 
1660,  Mary  Dyer  was  SENTENCED  TO  DEATH  by  Endieot, 
and  the  next  day  EXECUTED.  William  Leddra  returned  to 
Boston,  was  cast  into  an  open  prison,  and  locked  in  chains  day 
and  night,  in  a  very  cold  winter,  and  was  SENTENCED  TO 
DEATH,  and  executed  on  the  14th  of  the  Istmonth,  1661."  (1) 

*'  Many,  both  men  and  women,  were  stript  naked  from  the  waist 
and  upward,  tied  to  the  cart-tail,  and  SCOURGED  in  the  most 
brutal  and  barbarous  manner,  while  the  parsons,  who  were  the 
principal  instigators  to  such  more  than  savage  meanness,  were 
pleased  in  nothing  better  than  in  the  exercise  of  such  anti-Christian 
and  diabolical  cruelties." 

"  Peter  Pearson,  and  Judith  Brown,  being  stript  to  the  waist, 
were  fastened  to  a  cart-tail,  and  WHIPT  through  the  town  of 
Boston.  Also,  Josiah  Southick  was  stript,  and  led  through  the 
streets  of  Boston,  at  the  cart-tail,  and  vehemently  SCOURGED 
by  the  hangman.  The  same  day  he  was  WHIPT  at  ROXBURY, 
and  the  next  morning  at  DEDHAM.  The  whip  used  for  these 
cruel  executions,  was  not  of  whip-cord,  but  of  dried  guts;  and 
each  string  with  three  knots  at  the  end,^^  (2) 

"  December  22d,  1662.  At  Dover,  Anne  Coleman,  Mary  Tom- 
kins,  and  Alice  Ambrose,  were  sentenced  to  be  fastened  to  the 
cart-tail,  and  whipt  on  their  naked  backs,  through  eleven  towns, 
a  distance  of  nearly  eighty  miles.  Then,  in  a  very  cold  day,  the 
deputy,  Walden,  at  Dover,  caused  these  women  to  be  stript  naked, 
from   the  middle  upward,  and  tied  to  a  cart,  and   then  whipt 

THEM,  WHILE  THE  PARSON  LOOKED  ON  AND  LAUGHED  AT   IT.       TwO 

of  their  friends  testified  against  Walden's  cruelty,  for  which  they 
were  put  in  the  stocks. ^^ 

*'  The  women  were  carried  to  Hampton,  and  there  whipt ;  from 
thence  to  Salisbury,  and  again  lohipt.  William  Barefoot  at  length 
obtained  the  warrant  from  the  constable,  and  let  them  go:  the 

PARSON  ADVISING  TO  THE  CONTRARY.       Not  loug  after  thcSC  WOmCIl 

returned  to  Dover,  and  were  again  seized,  while  in  meeting,  and 
barbarously  dragged  about  at  the  instigation  of  (a  man  falsely 
called)  Hate-evil  Nutwell,  a  ruling  elder." 

"  The  barbarity  of  their  persecutors,  on  this  occasion,  exceeds  all 
description;  being  seized  in  meeting,  while  on  their  knees  in 
prayer,  they  were  dragged  by  their  arms  nearly  a  mile  through  a 
deep  snow,  across  fields  and  over  stumps,  by  which  they  were 
much  bruised.  The  next  day  they  were  barbarously  dragged 
down  a  steep  hill  to  the  water  side,  and  threatened  with  drowning ; 
and  one  of  them  was  actually  plunged  into  the  water,  when  a  sud- 
den shower  obliged  them  to  retreat:  at  length,  after  much  abuse, 

(1)  Sewel's  History,  p.  254.  (2)  Idem,  pp.  272,  324. 


413 

llrese  poor  victims  of  orthodox  barbarity  were  turned  out  of 
doors  at  midnight,  and  with  their  clothes  wet  and  frozen,  were 
obliged  to  suffer  the  inclemency  of  a  very  severe  winter's  night." 

"  Afterwards,  Anne  Coleman,  and  four  of  her  friends,  were  whipt 
through  Salem,  Boston,  and  Dedham,  by  order  of  Hawthorn,  the 
magistrate.  Anne  Coleman  was  a  little,  weakly  woman  ;  Belling- 
ham  encouraging  the  executioner  while  she  was  fastening  to  the 
cart  at  Dedham,  he  laid  on  so  severely,  that,  with  the  knot  of  the 
whip,  he  split  the  nipple  of  her  breast,  which  so  tortured  her,  that 
it  almost  took  away  her  life." 

Here  there  was  no  pretext,  no  motive  but  the  commandment 
enjoining  the  obligation  to  remove  "  all  false  worship,"  "accord- 
ing to  each  one's  place  and  calling;"  the  governor  ordering  the 
sentence  as  a  good  "  nursing  father,"  the  hangman  executing  it, 
and  the  parson  looking  on.  There  was  no  crime  charged  but  the 
crime  of  thought,  and  its  expression. 

These  are  the  points  of  the  question,  which  it  is  important  for 
the  gentleman  to  clear  up.  I  have  shown  that  the  barbarities, 
here,  and  throughout  this  speech,  enumerated,  were  founded  on 
the  very  principles  of  doctrine  still  extant  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith.  I  have  shown  that  those  who  have  interpreted  that  prin- 
ciple as  I  have  done,  were  not  only  orthodox  Presbyterians,  but 
the  fathers,  and  founders,  and  authoritative  expounders  of  the 
Presbyterian  doctrine.  Can  the  gentleman  answer  these  argu- 
ments ?  He  may  say,  as  he  has  said  before,  that  since  the  Revo- 
lution Presbyterians  have  not  put  Baptists,  or  Catholics,  or  So- 
cinians,  or  Quakers,  or  Episcopalians,  or  Arminians,  to  death  for 
*'  idolatry,"  or  "  false  worship."  But  this  is  still  the  argument, 
that  because  a  man  has  not  committed  robbery  since  he  has  been 
confined  in  prison,  therefore  he  is  an  honest  man.  Since  the 
Revolution,  the  thing  was  impracticable.  And  hence  it  is  that 
whilst  I  have  invariably  referred  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  for  the 
DOCTRINE,  I  have  referred  to  countries  where  it  had  "  fair  play," 
to  show  its  practice  and  effect.  The  doctrine  is  the  text;  the 
practice  is  the  commentary.  That  the  practice  is  founded  on  the 
doctrine,  no  man,  who  has  common  sense  to  estimate  the  meaning 
of  what  is  called  a  "  principle,"  will  for  a  moment  deny. 

It  is  a  principle  of  faith  and  morals,  that  what  God  has  com- 
manded we  are  bound  to  do.  Now,  the  Presbyterian  religion 
teaches  its  votaries  that  God  has  commanded  them  to  "  remove 
ALL  FALSE  WORSHIP."  Not  simply  to  preach  and  pray,  that  all 
false  worship  may  be  removed,  but  directly  and  absolutely  to 
*'  REMOVE  IT."  Here,  then,  thanks  be  to  Heaven,  the  Constitution 
will  not  allow  them  to  keep  this  commandment.  Suppose  the 
Constitution  would  not  allow  them  to  keep  holy  the  Sabbath 
day.  And  supposing  they  were  to  yield  obedience  to  the  Consti- 
tution, and,  by  profaning  the  Sabbath  day,  disobey  God — their 
condition  would  not  be  one  whit  different  from  what  it  is.     It 


414 

makes  no  matter  ivhich  of  the  commandments  the  Constitution 
obliges  them  to  violate.  But  the  eflect  of  the  doctrine  is  to  be 
looked  for  in  countries  where  the  civil  constitution  puts  no  obstacle 
in  the  way  of  its  observance. 

The  gentleman  tries  many  an  expedient  to  sink  the  question  in 
debate,  and  substitute  irrelevant  matter  in  all  the  majesty  of  wild- 
ness,  incoherency,  and  confusion.  He  cannot  answer  my  argu- 
ments ;  and  yet  it  would  look  bad  if  he  were  to  remain  silent. 
Hence,  he  flounders  away  in  his  own  peculiar  strain,  about  popes, 
and  all  those  things  which,  as  he  knows,  I  have  already  cleared 
up  under  the  proper  head,  in  the  former  question. 

It  is  almost  too  late  for  the  gentleman  to  affect  that  his  quota- 
tions can  be  always  depended  on,  when  I  have  proved  the  con- 
trary, in  instances  which  he  has  not  ventured  to  take  up.  He 
always  makes  a  charge  of  this  kind  for  himself,  when  he  wishes 
to  disprove  it,  but  those  which  I  specify^  he  passes  over. 

I  have  said  all  that  is  necessary  in  regard  to  the  Jesuits,  in  the 
former  question.  I  have  proved,  by  Protestant  writers,  that  most 
of  the  popular  prejudices,  which  pass  for  history  among  a  certain 
class  of  Protestants,  are  the  calumnies  of  the  primitive  Calvinists. 

The  gentleman  will  have  it  that  I  wish  to  be  acquainted  with 
Doctor  Miller.  I  have  already  stated  that  the  fact  is  not  so.  He 
is  surprised  that  Doctor  Cook,  of  Kentucky,  because  he  exposed 
the  vicious  citation  of  authors  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Prince- 
ton professor,  did  not  become  a  Catholic,  It  appears  that  even 
that  exposure  has  not  "  disturbed  one  hour  of  Doctor  Miller's 
rest."  This  is  precisely  what  might  be  expected  of  those  who 
believe  in  "  fore-ordination." 

The  allusion  to  Mr.  Ansley,  of  Burlington,  who  is  engaged  in 
the  peaceable  pursuits  of  his  avocations,  living  with  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren, and  labouring  for  them,  is  no  inapt  illustration  of  the  intoler- 
ant and  slanderous  spirit  with  which  Calvinism  imbues  its  vota- 
ries. Pray,  what  has  he  to  do  with  the  question ;  has  he  written 
a  book ;  has  he  appeared  in  any  public  capacity,  which  could  war- 
rant the  introduction  of  his  name  ?  And  yet,  because  he  has  exer- 
cised that  liberty  of  conscience,  for  which  the  gentleman  affects  to 
be  zealous,  his  private  character  is  attacked.  But  the  attack  be- 
trays the  meanness  that  would  insinuate,  without  the  courage  to 
assert,  and  being  founded  on  falsehood,  reflects  its  infamy  back 
upon  its  source. 

I  am  not  surprised  that  the  gentleman  touches  lightly  on  the 
heartless  language  in  which  he  seemed  to  exult,  in  his  last  speech, 
over  the  labours  of  the  mob  in  burning  the  Convent.  He  says, 
*'  if  the  mob  were  mistaken,  he  cannot  help  it."  Indeed!  And 
pray  what  are  he  and  his  associates,  "  according  to  their  place  and 
calling,"  doing,  but  trying  to  lead  the  mob  of  the  whole  country, 
wherever  it  can  be  found,  into  the  same  mistake,  that  they,  (the 
mob,)  "  according  to  their  place  and  calling,"  may  "  remove  the 


415 

monuments  of  idolatry"  in  the  same  way  ?  The  Presbyterian 
second  commandment  requires  that  it  should  do  so.  The  religion 
of  the  Christian  world,  for  lifteen  hundred  years  before  Calvin 
baptized  his  opinions  in  the  blood  of  Servetus,  is  to  be  called 
after  that  period  "  monuments  of  idolatry,"  by  a  set  of  men  who 
are  quarrelling  among  themselves  on  almost  every  article  of  Re- 
velation? And  because  they  call  it  by  this  name,  they  inculcate 
that  the  people  are  bound  to  "  REMOVE  it." 

I  have  already  given  the  reference  which  the  gentleman  calls 
for,  respecting  the  "  dictation  to  consciences  of  THOUSANDS 
of  IMMORTAL  beings."  If  he  has  not  the  book,  as  appears,  I 
sliall  loan  it  to  him.  And  now  let  him  tell  us  what  was  meant  by 
it.  Let  him  say,  whether  it  was  not  in  strict  accordance  with 
Presbyterian  duty,  "  according  to  each  one's  place  and  calling." 
If  Daniel  Webster  had  known  the  facts,  which  Doctor  Ely's  zeal 
for  Presbyterian  ascendancy  brought  before  the  public  notice,  his 
good  sense  and  sound  patriotism  would  have  induced  him  to  form 
the  same  judgment,  which  was  entertained  at  Harrisburg,  in  re- 
gard to  the  whole  proceeding.  I  convicted  the  gentleman,  in  re- 
lation to  it,  of  having  calumniated  my  character,  by  making 
charges  against  me  which  were  false  and  injurious.  I  refer  the 
reader,  for  proof  of  this,  to  my  last  speech.  He  says,  I  "  re- 
treated before  Daniel  Webster."  Not  at  all,  sir;  the  gentleman 
himself  had  made  assertions  unfounded  in  fact,  and  I  fastened 
them  on  him.  I  care  for  TRUTH  more  than  for  him  or  Daniel 
Webster,  with  whom,  by  the  way,  I  was  not  at  issue. 

The  gentleman  talks  of  insulting  the  American  people,  and  he 
has  the  simplicity  to  believe  that  he  and  his  associates  do  not 
offer  a  deeper  insult;  do  not  convey  an  insinuation  of  greater 
baseness,  than  could  be  done  by  even  an  enemy  to  the  national 
character; — when  they  insinuate  that  the  "  Pope  and  priesthood, 
and  the  Emperor  of  Austria,  are  rich  enough  to  buy  the  American . 
people  out  of  their  religious  principles  ! !  That  nothing  but  the 
vigilance  of  Brutus,  Doctor  Brownlee,  and  Mr.  Breckinridge  has 
saved  the  American  people  from  selling  themselves,  body  and  soul, 
to  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor  of  Austria ! !  This  is  the  hardest 
cut  of  all. 

With  legard  to  "  Mr.  Smith,"  I  have  only  to  say,  that  he  be- 
longs to  that  class,  of  whom  Dean  Swift  said  significantly, 
"  when  the  Pope  tueeds  his  garden,  I  wish  he  would  not  throw 
the  NETTLES  over  our  waliy 

The  gentleman  says,  that  "  popery  drains  usefully,"  in  receiv- 
ing from  Protestantism  a  few  worthless  proselytes,  unworthy  to  be 
retained.  If  he  is  sincere  in  this  remark,  he  refutes  those  mock 
apprehensions,  by  which  he  and  his  colleagues  are  labouring  to 
stir  up  the  people,  and  break  the  harmonies  of  society,  on  the 
plea  that  popery  is  making  such  wonderful  progress,  and  that, 
were  it  not  for  them,  the  Emperor  of  Austria  would  buy  out  Pro- 
testantism root  and  branch. 


416 

When  he  represents  me  as  "  assailing  the  Continental  Con- 
gress," I  have  again  to  caution  the  reader,  thai  his  statement  is  not 
to  be  depended  on.  Does  the  gentleman  suppose  that  nobody  is 
acquainted  with  the  "  History  of  England,"  and  that  an  opinion 
expressed  by  any  body  of  men,  however  respectable,  is  to  be 
taken  for  proof — when  the  facts  are  known  to  the  world  which 
disprove  it  ? 

Does  not  every  one  know  that,  since  the  Reformation,  so  called, 
the  Catholics  of  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  have  been  ground 
to  the  earth,  by  the  millstone  of  oppression,  intolerance,  and  per- 
secution? Can  the  gentleman  be  ignorant  of  this?  Or  does  he 
thrust  himself  on  the  discussion,  with  the  simplicity  of  a  child, 
who  knows  no  other  reason  for  things  only  because  "  father  says 
so?"  The  "paragiaph"  is  justly  qualified,  when  he  tells  us  it 
was  "  DRAFTED."  Now,  history  is  not  "  drafted,"  and  this  con- 
stitutes the  difference.  It  is  truly  amusing,  to  hear  the  gentleman 
calling  for  "  Wesley's  argument,"  which  I  have  answered  by 
showing,  that  it  was  founded  on  a  false  assumption.  But  the 
predicament  in  which  he  finds  himself,  with  regard  to  the  defence 
of  Presbyterianism,  must  account  to  the  reader,  for  the  wander- 
ings of  his  memory,  and  the  confusion  of  his  thoughts.  The  man 
who  acknowledges  that  God  has  commanded  him  to  "  REMOVE 
ALL  FALSE  WORSHIP,"  has  an  awkward  and  difficult  part 
to  sustain,  when  he  affects  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
country  which  forbids  him  to  keep  that  commandment.  I  hope, 
therefore,  the  audience  will  make  allowance  for  the  gentleman's 
situation. 


417 


"^^  Is  the  Presbyterian  liellgion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  'P^ 


NEGATIVE  IV.— MR.  BRECKINRIDGE. 

Mr.  President  : — As  the  gentleman  professes  to  act  under 
the  guidance  of  a  living  oracle,  and  an  infallible  interpreter  of 
the  word  of  God,  I  will  thank  hinj  very  much  for  an  interpreta- 
tion in  his  next  speech  of  the  following  passage,  "  Yet  Michael^ 
the  archangel,  ivhen  contending  with  the  devil  disputed  about  the 
body  of  Moses,  durst  not  bring  against  him  arailiyig  accusation, 
but  said  the  Lord  rebuke  thee'\\)  His  interpretation,  if  just, 
will  answer  his  ill-bred  and  unfounded  calumnies,  and  excuse,  yea, 
I  must  suppose,  commend  to  this  society  the  pity  and  silence  with 
which  I  can  pass  them  by,  rejoicing  that  we  are  in  an  age,  and  in 
aland,  where  the  terror  {ivith  \he  power)  of  the  priesthood  of 
Rome  has  ceased. 

He  has  charged  me  with  "  shifting  the  terms''  of  the  sweeping 
denial  which  he  made  as  to  the  extent  of  "  Calvinism"  in  the 
world.  He  says,  I  had  stated,  "  that  (except  perhaps,  the  Con- 
gregationalists)  the  high-toned  Presbyterians  were  the  only  de- 
nomination that  had  not  become  ashamed  of  the  avowal  of  the 
doctrine.  He  does  not  meet  the  statement,  and  yet  by  a  slight 
shifting  of  the  terms,  he  affects  to  have  refuted  it.  He  says,  '  the 
twelve  creeds  of  the  orginal  reformers,'  and  '  the  Episcopalian 
articles'  have  it.  But  had  I  denied  this?  Did  I  assert  that  '  creeds 
and  articles'— parchment,  are  capable  of  becoming  ashamed  ?"  The 
gentleman's  memory  is  short,  and  he  forgets  that  litcra  scripta 
maiiet.  In  his  second  speech,  night  seventh,  he  thus  spoke : — 
"  The  only  denomination  I  know  who  have  not  become  ashamed 
of  the  avowal  of  this  article,  are  the  high-toned  Presbyterians.  I 
defy  tJic  p7'oof  thdii  it  is  held  by  the  other  denominations  whom  he 
has  mentioned."     Here  you  see 

I.  He  has  shifted  his  terms  most  uncandidly ;  for  in  his  last 
speech  he  excepts,  with  a  "  perhaps,"  the  Congregationali-sts,  who 
compose  the  mass  of  New  England,  and  nearly  the  half  of  the 
evangelical  Christians  of  Old  England.     But  in   the  other,   he 

(])  Jiide,  9  verse. 
53 


4l8 

excepted  no  denomination  ;  thus  shifting  the  terms  of  his  own 
speech. 

II.  He  flatly  contradicts  himself.  In  his  last  speech,  as  quoted 
above,  he  says  he  only  said  that  other  denominations  were  ashamed 
of  the  doctrine.  This  is  implying  thai  though  they  hold  it,  they 
are  not  honest  enough  to  avow  it!  But  on  the  last  night  he  said 
expressly,  "  1  defy  the  proof  that  it  (the  doctrine)  is  held  by 

THE  OTHER  DENOMINATIONS  AVHOM  HE  HAS  MENTIONED."     Here  he 

says  ''  /ie/fZ,"  not  merely  "  ashamed  of.'''  Such  tricks  are  worthy  of 
a  Jesuit.  It  was  his  call  for  proof  \Mh\zh.  led  me  to  quote  at  large 
from  the  articles  of  the  Episcopal  church,  and  to  refer  to  other 
creeds.  He  shows  extreme  and  impertinent  ignorance  when  he 
says,  "  I  know,  as  well  as  he  does,  that  NONE  of  the  Baptists 
are  "  Calvinists  ;"  whereas,  the  majority  of  the  Baptists  in  Great 
Britain  and  America  are  decidedly  Calvinistic. 

I  shall  remember  his  denial  that  Augustine  held,  "  that  God 
from  all  eternity  fore-ordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  ;"  and  his 
knowledge  or  his  candour  must  suffer  not  a  little  in  my  next  reply. 

The  gentleman  asks  how  I  can  obey  both  the  American  Constitu- 
tion, wWxoAi  forbids  me  to  touch  the''  momimtnts  of  idolatry  "  Siud 
our  confession,  which  commands  me  "to  remove  them  ?""  I  have 
answered  the  question  before,  by  showing  that  we  mean  in  the 
confession  no  force,  but  truth,  moral  iiifluence,  argument,  the  press, 
the  Bible,  ^c.  Sfc.  For  example,  the  fifty  Catholics  who  were 
converted  to  Protestantism  in  Baltimore  last  year,  by  truth, 
not  force,  were  delivered  from  the  idolatry  of  Rome;  ceased 
to  worship  a  consecrated  wafer;  ceased  to  worship  saints  and 
angels.  Thus  we  largely  removed  the  monuments  of  idolatry. 
I  know  it  is  not  a.  pleasant  business  to  Mr.  Hughes.  But  we  can- 
not help  that.  Yet,  if  he  will  show  anything  unconstitutional  in 
all  this,  except  that  it  violates  the  constitution  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  (whose  health  is  already  not  a  little  impaired  by  the  free 
discussions  going  on  in  America),  we  will  feel  ourselves  much 
obliged  to  him. 

As  to  the  article  from  the  "  Catholic  Telegraph,"  I  pass  by  the 
insolent  and  ill-bred  remarks  of  the  gentleman  on  it.  -I  now  chal- 
lenge the  gentleman  to  prove  one  word  he  has  said  (of  the  inten- 
tion of  the  extract)  to  be  true.  Till  then  he  stands  my  calumniator, 
and  the  uncandid  vindicator  of  Catholic  eufuity  to  American  institu- 
tions. I  call  on  the  gentleman  distinctly  to  pi'ove  what  he  has 
said  on  this  subject,  or  else  to  disclaim  it  with  proper  apology  and 
explanation. 

The  arguments  of  our  popish  advocate  have  a  very  one-sided  wsiy 
of  advancing  toward  their  object.  Let  us  illustrate  this.  In  my  last 
speech  I  gave  long  extracts  from  Bishop  England's  published  letter, 
attacking  directly  our  republican  institutions.  Yet  the  gentleman 
says  not  one  word  about  it !  So  also  of  my  Lord  Bishop  Flagel.  I 
showed  by  extracts  from  his  communications  from  Kentucky  to 


•      119 

Rome,  that  he  directly  declares  that  religion  cannot  be  spread 
among  tlie  Western  Indians  "  whilst  our  republican  govern- 
ment SHALL  SUBSIST."  Yct  the  gentleman,  like  his  brother  Le- 
vite  of  old,;;«s5e5  bj/  on  the  other  side.  Yet  he  pays  high  regard 
to  an  article  in  a  newspaper  of  which  he  fancied,  or  he  hoped  he 
could,  withoiit  detection,  charge  me  with  the  perversion.  But  now, 
while  I  recall  him  to  the  defence  or  renunciation  of  the  two  above- 
named  American  (what  a  contradiction  in  terms)  Catholic  prelates, 
I  charge  him  with  mis-stating  the  intention  of  the  extract  from  the 
Catholic  Telegraph,  and  call  on  him  to  prove  his  statements  to  be 
true,  or  confess  them  false. 

The  gentleman's  two  stereotype  arguments  appear  once 
more — I  think  for  the  thirteenth  time.  One  is,  the  doctrine  of 
ETERNAL  DECREES  of  God  is  destructive  of  moral,  and,  therefore, 
of  civil  liberty.  This  argument  has  already  been  so  much  laughed 
at  by  the  community  since  the  champion  of  popery  first  used  it  in 
this  debate,  and  so  often  answered  by  me,  that  I  should  really  be 
ashamed  to  go  over  it  again,  for  fear  of  fatiguing  my  hearers  arid 
future  readers.  But  it  may  relieve  the  dry  tedium  of  his  hum  drum 
repetition  of  this  stale  matter,  if  he  would  tell  us  what  are  the  true 
NEWS  of  this  subject.  He  attacks  the  principles  of  the  Protestants  of 
the  Reformation  era,  and  of  the  great  body  of  evangelical  Protest- 
ants noio.  But  he  gives  no  other  system  in  its  stead.  Let  us  now 
hear  how  he  reconciles  the  divine  government  with  moral  liberty. 
I  have  showed  that  the  Council  of  Trent  in  one  instance,  clearly 
recognised  the  doctrine  of  election,  and  in  another,  shunned 
giving  any  explanation.  Now,  until  the  gentleman  gives  us  a  bet- 
ter system,  and  clears  up  the  charges  against  his  own,  as  acknow- 
ledging what  he  condemns  in  ours,  we  must  hold  him  responsible 
as  either  unpardonably  ignorant,  or  still  worse.  I  call  on  him, 
then,  explicitly,  and  with  no  more  evasion,  to  tell  us  what  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church  does  believe  on  "  the  decrees,"and  "  elec- 
tion," and  if  he  will  tell  us,  1  here  pledge  myself  to  prove  either 
\\\?,X  he  falsifies  his  creed,  or  else  that  the  very  same  objections  lie 
against  it  which  he  has  charged  against  ours.  As  to  the  other 
s^ereo^3//;e  argument,  concerning  the  "  monuments  of  idolatry,"  I 
can  only  say,  I  believe  that  every  creature  in  this  house,  not  ex- 
cepting Mr.  Hughes,  feels  fully  persuaded  that  it  has  been  again 
and  again  refuted.  Yet  I  do  not  wonder  that  his  deepest  s|mpa- 
thies  are  kindled  for  h'vsgods.  In  India  it  was  once  wittily  said, 
"  if  one  would  pray  against  idolatry  he  must  ask  God  that  it  may 
not  rain.''''  The  Hindoos  worship  even  the  things  that  grow 
out  of  the  ground.  So  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  She  manufactures 
gods;  shemakespriests,and  they  make  gods.  It  was  said  of  the  oM 
Romans,  that  they  had  130,000  gods.  But  the  neiv  Roman 
priests  find  one  in  every  shrine,  and  every  saint,  and  every  angel, 
and  every  image,  and  every  relic,  and  every  consecrated  wafer, 
and,  in  short,  in  e\e!cy  priest.     No  wonder  that  the  priests,  there- 


420 

fore,  cry  out  for  their  idoh.  As  did  tlie  shriiic-dtalcrs  at  Ephesus, 
and  for  tiie  same  reason  (viz.  lest  the  ^ain  of  the  craft  should 
suffer)  so  do  the  priests.  They  cry  aloud  "  ii;reat  is  Diana  of  the 
Ephcsians."  But  the  day  of  their  doom  is  at  hand.  American 
Catholics  are  year  by  year  getting  more  and  more  weaned  from 
Rome,  and  opening  their  eyes  to  priestcraft :  and  if  we  can  only 
for  an  age,  escape  the  contagion  of  that  foreign  infusion  which  is 
pouring  upon  us  in  Jesuit  priests,  and  the  most  degraded  emissions 
from  papal  Europe,  I  have  no  doubt,  that  we  shall  find  the  enlight- 
ened Catholics  of  America  renouncing  Rome. 

It  is  curious  enough  to  observe,  how  the  gentleman,  by  a  turn  of 
of  humour,  would  put  aside  the  famous  letter  to  Paul  III.     I  ask 
the  gentleman  to  deny  its  genuineness,  if  he  dares.     He  knows 
too  well  zuhat  it  is,  and  on  whsii  proof  it  rests.     Nor  does  it  show 
the  solicitude  of  the  Pope  to  purify  the  church.     For  he  never 
attempted  it,  though  the  letter  called /or  it  so  loudly.     Its  disclo- 
sures  show  that  the  Catholic  Church  was  terribly  corrupt  in  her 
head  and  members,  and  that  the  system  leads  to  such  effects.     But 
the  gentleman  has  admitted  that  such  a  system  is  destructive  of 
liberty  and  of  society.     Therefore  on  his  own  priiiciples,  T  have 
proved  that  his,  oivn  system  is  destructive  of  liberty  and  of  society. 
As  to  the  changes  which  have  been  made  in  our  confession  on 
the  subject  of  religious  liberty,  we  have  proved  that  they  were 
7nade  before  the  American  Revolution,  and  by  the  patriots  who 
helped  to  effect  it ;   and  for  the  same  reason  that  they  sought 
it,    viz.:    the   love    of  liberty,  full  and   entire — civil   and  reli- 
gious.    Mr.  Hughes  has  again  and  again  admitted  this  change  ; 
and  yet  he  7ioio  says  that  "  the  difference  is  only  inuwrds.^''     Here, 
as  usual,  he  contradicts  himself,  and  makes  fools  of  the  American 
people  ;  for  he  had  said  the  change  was  to  adapt  our  confession  to  the 
new  order  of  things.     But  can  the  American  people  beguiled  with 
a  change  in  a  few  ivords,  when  the  thing  remains  the  same  ?     So 
he  seems  to  intimate.    The  gentleman's  appeal  to  the  civil  govern- 
ment of  the  cantons  of  Switzerland,  and  to  the  icitch  stories  of 
New  England  is  tvdl.     It  shows  that  he  has  nothing  against  us — 
that  he  is  writing  against  time — that  he  feels  it  his  task  to  make 
out  a  speech.     And  this  interprets  why  he  rejected  the  stenogra- 
pher's report,  and  why  he  was  so  zealous  to  go  to  Mexico.     Yes  ; 
when  we  complete  this  debate,  1  am  well  persuaded  that  those 
enlightened  Catholics  who  have  looked  for  a  manly,  honest  defence 
of  the  system  which  they  have  been  taught  was^rz^e,  will  look  with 
wonder  and  deep  mortification  through  these  pages,  and  find  them 
filled  with  vulgarity,  trash,  aiul  talcs,  merely  thrown  in  to  cloud 
the  discussion  and  divert  the  attention.     They  will  say  "  WJiy 
did  he  not  refute   as  loell  «5  deny?     Why  did  he  talk  about 
WITCHES  in  New  England^  when  he  had  promised  to  shoiv  that 
'  Presbyterian  doctrines  are  opposed  to  liberty  V     And  why  did 
he  pass  by  unnoticed,  imexplain.ed.  unanswered,  page  after  page 


421 

professing  to  be  proof  that  Catholic  doctrines  are  at  war  unth  the 
civil  and  religious  freedom  of  man  ?'^ 

But  these  are  "  reasons  ofsiatc'^  unto  which  the  "  h\ity  must  not 
aspire  to  look.  Tlie  gentleman  says  "  he  has  already/  given  the 
reference  which  I  called for^'  in  the  report  (f  the  American  Sunday 
School  Union.  I  pronounce  it  utterly  false,  and  now  once  more 
demand  it — page,  year,  and  report.  His  defence  of  the  Burlington 
brother  is  ominous.  He  says  that  he  is  "  living  with  his  wife  and 
children,  and  labouring  for  them.'^  For  his  coarse  abuse  1  pardon 
him.  His  pen  is  truly  vulgar.  His  tongue,  when  started  in 
scandal,  is  original  and  at  home,  as  if  it  were  a  familiar  and 
favourite  business.  And  this  a  father  confessor  to  refined  and 
lovely  women!!!  He  breaks  forth  upon  one,  like  the  "  7«oy/n^- 
bog^"*  of  which  I  lately  read  an  account,  which,  though  covered  at 
the  surface  with  luxuriant. green,  was  no  sooner  disrupted  by  some 
disturbing  force,  than  it  broke  forth  into  a  dark  and  slimy  stream, 
which  poured  its  filthy  current  through  fields  and  brooks,  and  the 
habitations  of  men  ;  spreading  one  dark  veil  of  pollution  over  the 
whole  face  of  nature. 

But  no  wonder  he  starts  with  conscious  wincing  at  the  touch. 
The  cry  of  the  orphan  robbed  of  its  father,  may  yet  come  up 
against  him  before  God.  The  detestable  system  which  can  licence 
brothels  in  Rome,  and  tear  families  asunder  in  America  with  fana- 
tical excess,  and  a  degrading  superstition  that  dries  up  the  heart 
of  man,  shall  not  pass  unexposed  in  this  land.  Nor  shall  this  case 
stop  with  the  gentleman' s  denied,  and  exparte  testimony.  He  is 
too  nearly  involved  in  this  matter  to  be  permitted  by  an  indignant 
community  to  be  a  witness,  unless  it  be  as  states-evidence,  and 
preceded  by  confession  in  the  ear,  not  of  a  priest,  but  o^  the  Ame- 
rican people.     The  gentleman  shall  hear  of  this  again. 

When  he  charges  Calvin  with  making  God  the  author  of  sin, 
\\e  falsified  the  author  icith  his  eyes  open.  And  now,  if  he  will 
only  give  in  his  next  speech,  the  context,  and  \]\q passages  of  Scrip- 
ture which  Calvin  was  expounding  in  meeting  the  objections  of 
Cavillers,  I  will  prove  my  assertion  and  charge  made  in  the  last 
sentence. 

In  the  oral  debate,  and  in  this  repetition  of  it  in  manus^r^^^-i\w. 
gentleman  has  often  and  very  impertinently  attacked -Mft  pn  my 
^*  quotations.''  You  know,  gentlemen,  how  very  ntmfius  ihf^x 
have  been.  Of  course  where  he  passes  them  by  in  silence  (as  he 
has  done  with  many  scores  of  them)  it  is  admitting  iYm  truth  v.\ 
the  proof,  and  the  fairness  of  the  method  of  citation.  But  1  am 
not  satisfied  with  \.\\\^  negative  way  of  conviction.  I  now,  therefore, 
take  up  and  expose  h\s  positive  charges  against  me.  As  his  slan- 
ders are  repeated  ,  and  his  last  speech  really  presents  nothing  to  be 
replied  to,  I  will  here  present  a  paper  read  by  me  daring  the  oral 
debate,  which  j)ainfully  exposes  him  and  his  system,  but  which 
duty  requires  me  to  exhibit. 


422 

Reply  to  the  paper  throion  into  the  oral  discussion  by  the  Rev.  J. 
Hughes,  in  which  he  charges  his  opponent  loith  divers  calumnies 
against  the  Church  of  Rome. 

When  this  pompous  and  slanderous  paper  was  presented,  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  was  nominally  defending  the  Roman  Catholic 
religion.  But  having,  during  a  succession  of  three  nights,  to  the 
surprise  of  his  friends  and  the  compassion  of  his  protestant  hearers, 
utterly  failed  to  meet  any  of  the  many  facts  and  arguments  brought 
forward  to  expose  the  hostility  of  his  church  to  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  he  proved  and  owned  himself  defeated  by  ?i  personal  attack 
on  his  opponent,  which  could  have  no  connexion  with  the  question 
in  debate.  He  dragged  into  view  the  matters  of  a  former  contro- 
versy, and  tried,  though  in  vain,  to  save  his  cause  by  blackening 
the  character  of  his  adversary  when  he  could  not  meet  his  argu- 
ments— thus  illustrating  the  maxim  of  the  Jesuits,  that  *'  the  end 
justifies  the  means.^'  I  promised  in  due  time  to  expose  this  paper 
and  its  author.  Having  already  given  up  one  of  my  evenings 
(devoted  to  the  attack  of  his  doctrines)  Vopersonal  defence,  in  answer 
to  his  personal  attack,  and  the  gentleman  still  continuing  to  call 
replies,  and  to  press  these  personalities,  it  is  due  to  the  cause  and 
to  myself  to  reply  in  this  form  before  this  discussion  closes. 

1st.  He  charges  me  with  calumniating  his  church,  for  saying  in 
a  former  published  controversy,  that  according  to  the  Council  of 
Constance,  Roman  Catholics  are  not  hound  to  keep  faith  with  he- 
retics. During  that  controversy,  and  again  during  this  debate,  I 
proved  the  truth  of  this  weighty  charge. 

Here  follows  the  proof.  From  the  XIX  Session  of  said  Council 
I  produced,  read,  and  translated  to  this  assembly  (the  gentleman 
then  making  no  reply)  the  following  passage,  viz  : — That  a  safe 
conduct  granted  by  an  emperor  or  other  secular  prince  to  heretics, 
or  those  charged  tvith  heresy,  cannot  hinder  the  competent  and 
ecclesiastical  judge  from  enquiring  into  the  errors  of  such  persons, 
nor  from  proceeding  in  other  ways  against  them,  nor  from  pun- 
ishing them  as  much  as  justice  shall  require,  if  they  obstinately 
refuse  to  recant  their  errors,  although  they  may  have  come  to  the 
place  of  judgment  depending  on  said  safe  conduct,  and  would  not 
have  come  otherwise  (etiam  si  de  salvo  conductu  confissi,  ad 
Ipcum  venerint  judicii  ,  alias  non  venturi) ;  nor  is  the  person  promi- 
sing the  safe  conduct,  bound  by  it  after  having  done  what  he 
could.{l) 

That  no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with  heretics  is  so  established  a  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  Rome  that  it  is  heretical  to  deny  it.  This 
principle  is  taught  by  such  Roman  Catholic  writers  as  Bailly,  Si- 
manca,  Aquinas,  Cresswell,  Bernard,  Cornelio,  the  Jesuits  gener- 
ally, the  Parisian  University,  and  by  Popes  Gregory  IX.,  Urban 

(1)  See  Aclse  Ecclesia,  torn.  i.  p.  1669;  see  also  I'Eufant's  His.  of  Coun. 
Constance,  p.  335. 


423 

VI.,  Paul  IV.,  Paul  V.,  Innocent  X.  to  name  no  others;  also  by 
the  provincial  Councils  of  Rome,  Lateran  and  Diamper;  and  also 
by  the  general  Councils  of  Lateran  Fourth,  Lyons,  Pisa,  and  Basil, 
as  well  as  the  Council  of  Constance.  The  Councils  of  Basil  and  Trent 
contradict  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes,  and  admit  the  fact  about  the 
Council  of  Constance,  in  the  safe  conduct  which  they  granted  to 
the  Bohemians  and  Germans.  The  Council  of  Trent  in  the  safe 
conduct  given  to-the  Germans,  on  the  14th  day  of  May,  1562,  thus 
speaks;  ^dded  to  this,  cxclKding  all  fraud  and  stratagem,  this 
council  promises  in  good  and  true  faith,  that  it  will  seek  no  occa- 
sion either  publicly  or  secretly,  by  any  authority,  power,  right,  sta- 
tute, privilege  of  law,  or  of  canons,  or  of  any  councils  whatsoever, 
especially  the  Councils  of  Constance  and  Siena,  in  whatever  form 
of  words  expressed,  to  prejudice  in  any  way  the  security  of  this  pub- 
lic faith.  (1)  It  was  on  this  admitted  principle  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
that  the  powerful  and  yet  unanswered  argument  of  Westley  proved 
that  no  consistent  Roman  Catholic,  or  in  other  words,  none  who  had 
not  renounced,  ex  animo,  this  principle  of  true  communion,  can  be 
a  true  citizen  of  a  Protestant  government.  Multitudes,  we  rejoice 
to  know,  do  renounce  it.  But  where  we  ask  does  the  calumny  now 
lie.^  For  additional  proof  we  refer  to  ThUanus,  iii.  524.  Father 
Paul  lib.  i.  28,  and  Labbeus,  Alexander,  and  Cruileb  on  the 
Council  of  Constance. 

2d.  I  am  charged  by  the  Rev. gentleman  with  saying,  "that  ac- 
cording to  the  Sixteenth  Canon  of  the  Third  Council  of  Lateran,  an 
oath  contrary  to  ecclesiastical  utility  is  perjury,  not  an  oath,"  and 
whereas  the  said  canon  now  produced  in  the  original  contains  no 
such  doctrine,  therefore  the  charge  is  false  and  injurious  as 
above." 

Ans.  It  is  very  possible  that  the  gentleman's  abridgement  of  the 
Book  of  Councils  may  not  contain  this  offensive  article.  But  we 
have  the  best  authority  for  its  existence,  viz.  Pithon,  p.  110.  Lab- 
beus, 13  vol.  p.  426.  Guibert,  3  vol.  504  p.  (2)  The  following  are 
the  words  of  the  Holy  Council,  "  Non  juramenta,  sed  perjuria 
potius  sunt  dicenda,  qusB  contra  utilitatem,  ecclesiasticum  atten- 
tantur."  And  if  more  proof  is  wanting,  that  this  trifling  with  the 
sacredness  of  oaths  is  an  avowed  and  practical  principle  of  the 
popes,  councils,  and  Church  of  Rome,  we  refer  the  gentleman  to 
what  we  have  said  above  in  the  first  head. 

3d.  The  Rev.  gentleman  thus  charges  me:  "That  the  Fourth 
Council  of  Lateran,  A.D.  1215,  third  canon,  freed  the  subjects  of 
such  sovereigns  as  embraced  heresy  from  their  fealty ;  (Mr.  B.  same 
page,)  whereas  the  original  canon  now  produced  contains  no  such 
doctrine,  therefore  the  charge  is  again  false  and  injurious  as 
before." 


(1)  See  Decrees  of  Couri.  Trent,  sess.  18.  p.  247.    Lyons  1624. 

(2)  See  Edgar's  Variations  of  Popery,  278  page. 


424 

Proof.  Binnius,  in  his  Book  of  Councils,  8lh  vol,  807  p.  and 
Labbeus,  13th  vol.  934  p.  as  cited  by  Edgar,  expressly  confirm 
my  statement.  But  we  need  go  no  farther  than  the  original  canon 
itself,  which  has  been  read  in  full  to  this  assembly  to  prove  the 
truth  of  our  assertion.  It  is  as  follows:  "  But  if  the  temporal  lord, 
being  required  and  warned  by  the  church,  shall  neglect  to  purge 
his  territory  of  this  heretical  filth,  let  him  by  the  metropolitan 
and  comprovincial  bishops  be  tied  by  the  bond  of  excommunica- 
tion ;  and  if  he  scorn  to  satisfy  within  a  year,  let  that  be  signified 
to  the  Pope,  that  he  may  denounce  his  vassal,  thenceforth  ab- 
solved fro/u  his  fidelity,  (or  allegiance)  and  may  expose  his 
country  to  be  seized  on  by  Catholics,  who  exterminating  the 
heretics,  may  possess  it  without  any  contradiction,  and  may  keep 
it  in  the  purity  of  faith,  saving  the  right  of  the  principal  lord,  so 
be  it  he  himself  put  no  obstacle  hereto,  nor  impose  any  impedi- 
ment; the  same  law  notwithstanding  being  kept  about  them  that 
have  no  principal  lords." 

Here  then,  in  express  words,  and  in  the  very  canon  itself,  is  my 
whole  statement  affirmed,  and  the  gentleman's  confident  assertion 
directly  falsified.  Not  only  is  this  true,  but  it  is  matter  of  history 
that  popes  almost  without  number  have  absolved  subjects  from 
their  oath  of  allegiance  to  their  sovereigns.  Thus  Gregory  in 
1078  absolved  all  from  their  fidelity  who  were  bound  by  oath  to 
persons  excommunicated,  and  this  he  professed  to  do  by  apostolical 
authority.  Eos  qui  excommunicatis  fidelitate  aut  sacramento  con- 
stricti  sunt,  apostolica  auctoritate  a  sacramento  absolvimus.  (1) 
"  We  absolve  those  who  arc  bound  by  oath  or  fidelity  to  excommu- 
nicated persons  from-  said  oath,  by  apostolical  authority ."  Cle- 
ment, in  1306  freed  Edward,  king  of  England,  from  a  public  oath 
which  he  had  made  to  the  people  to  confirm  the  Magna  Charta. 
See  also  what  is  said  under  the  first  head  in  regard  toother  popes, 
provincial  and  general  councils,  which  have  sanctioned  the  same 
infamous  principle. 

4th.  I  am  charged  as  follows:  "That  whereas  Mr.  B.  has  ac- 
cused Bellarmine  of  saying  that  if  the  Pope  should  err  in  com- 
manding vices  and  prohibiting  virtues,  the  church  would  be  bound 
to  believe  vices  to  be  virtues  and  virtues  to  be  vices.  And  whereas 
Bellarmine  has  been  referred  to  as  maintaining  this  doctrine,  (2) 
and  whereas  Bellarmine  teaches  no  such  doctrine,  but  the  reverse, 
therefore  this  is  false  and  injurious  to  Catholics." 

Proof.  1  insist  that  I  have  fairly  represented  the  sentiment  of 
Bellarmine.  Bellarmine  is  attempting  to  prove  that  the  Pope  is 
infcdlible,  and  he  pursues  this  train  of  argument. 

1.  The  church  is  bound  by  conscience  to  believe  the  Pope. 

2.  If  the  Pope  were  not  infallible,  he  might  command  vices  and 
prohibit  virtues. 

(1)  Filhon,  260  page.  (2)  Mr.  B.  ibid,  p.  19. 


425 

3.  If  the  Pope  should  err  in  commanding  vices  and  prohibiting 
virtues,  the  church  would  be  bound  to  believe  vices  to  be  good, 
and  virtues  to  be  bad. 

Mr.  Hughes  says,  "  in  the  former  controversy,  you  stated  that  it 
is  a  principle  of  Catholics,  '  that  if  the  Pope  were  to  command 
vice  and  prohibit  virtue,  he  is  to  be  obeyed.'  "  I  answer,  I  neve7' 
stated  it  is  a  principle  of  Catholics,  but  merely  said,  **  Bcllarmine 
sai/s.^'  That  I  quoted  Bellarmine  fairly,  I  appeal  to  the  original 
quoted  by  Mr.  Hughes.  Bellarmine  as  much  asserts  the  third  of 
these  propositions,  as  he  does  the  first  and  second.  His  reasoning 
reminds  me  of  the  following  little  incident  in  the  Roman  History. 
After  the  death  of  Tiberius  Gracchus,  one  Blosius  who  had  taken 
part  with  him  against  the  Senate,  came  to  the  consul  to  sue  for 
mercy.  His  plea  was  "that  he  had  entertained  so  high  a  regard 
for  Gracchus,  that  he  thought  he  ought  to  do  whatever  Gracchus 
desired."  "  What,"  said  the  consul,  "  if  Gracchus  had  wished 
you  to  set  fire  to  the  capitol,  would  you  have  thought  yourself 
bound  in  friendship  to  have  complied  with  his  wishes?"  "  He 
would  never  have  wished  it,"  answered  Blosius,  "  but  if  he  had  I 
certainly  should  have  obeyed  him."  The  historian  adds,  '^nefaria 
est  ista  vox^  "  This  is  an  impious  sentiment.''''  And  so  will 
every  man  of  sense,  and  honesty,  say  of  the  similar  sentirnent  of 
Bellarmine. 

Now  to  put  this  matter  beyond  all  doubt,  the  same  Bellarmine 
in  his  work  against  Barklay,  c.  13.  says,  "  In  bono  sensu,  Christus 
dedit  Petro  potestatem  faciendi  de  peccato  nan  j)eccatum ;  et  de  non 
peccato peccatum."  "In  a  good  sense,  Christ  gave  to  Peter  power 
to  make  that  which  is  sin,  to  be  no  sin;  and  that  which  is  no  sin, 
to  be  sin;"  and  he  infers,  that  the  Pope  as  Peter's  successor  has 
power  to  do  the  same.  Now  can  any  one  conceive  how  sin  can  be 
made  no  sin,  and  no  sin  be  made  sin  in  a  good  sense!  Is  it  not  the 
very  sense  which  we  have  given  to  the  other  passage?  It  is  re- 
served to  the  morality  of  Rome  to  make  sm  good,  and  virtue,  vice. 

5th.  The  Rev.  gentleman  charges  me  with  calumniating  the 
Roman  Church,  when  I  assert,  that  she  has  suppressed  that  part 
of  the  first  commandment  (second)  which  forbids  idolatry. 

In  answer  to  this,  I  reply,  first,  That  on  a  previous  evening  of 
this  debate,  such  abundant  proofs  were  given  of  the  truth  of  this 
charge,  that  they  need  not  be  repeated  here.  Second,  The  copy 
which  I  produced  from  a  public  library  in  New  York,  fully  sus- 
tained my  assertion,  which  was,  that  it  gave  only  four  words  of 
the  portion  against  idolatry,  and  closed  with  an  expressive  etcetera: 
and  whereas,  Mr.  H.  states  that  said  copy  contained  the  whole 
commandment,  we  positively  deny  the  truth  of  the  statement;  for 
it  was  apparent  on  examination  that  many  pages  from  the  place 
where  it  ought  to  have  been  written  in  tull,  it  was  given  in  broken 
fragm,ents,  and  not  only  the  sense,  but  the  words,  as  much  as  pos- 
sible, kept  out  of  view.     Third,  The  fact  that  he  exhibited  some 

54 


426 

copies  of  one  edition,  which  contained  it  in  full,  only  proves,  that 
they  print  different  editions  for  different  latitudes.  For  it  will 
abundantly  appear  under  the  next  head,  how  the  priesthood  of  the 
same  communion,  can  fraudulently  pervert  the  Latin  and  the 
English  of  that  same  book. 

6th.  I  am  charged  with  calumniating  the  translators  of  this 
catechism,  in  two  specifications,  1st,  for  asserting  that  the  transla- 
tion of  Donovan,  and  that  called  the  Dublin  edition,  materially  dif- 
fer. In  reply,  1  have  only  to  refer  to  Cramp's  Text  Book  of  Po- 
pery, page  380,  for  a  glaring  confirmation  of  this  charge.  2d 
specification,  I  am  charged  with  slandering  the  English  transla- 
tion (which  is  Donovan's)  now  in  use  in  this  country,  by  accusing 
it  of  manifold  frauds  upon  the  Latin  text.  The  proofs  of  these 
frauds  1  did  not  derive  from  the  Text  Book  of  Popery,  but  collated 
the  translation  with  the  original,  in  the  hearing  of  this  assembly. 
This  translation  be  it  hioion  is  sanctioned  and  recommended  hy 
the  Rev.  gentleman,  and  all  his  brethren  in  America,  as  faithful 
and  true.  Now  I  assert  that  it  is  basely  a  false  one.  On  page 
244  of  that  translation  one  whole  sentence,  not  in  the  latin,  begin- 
ning with  these  word,  "Perfect  contrition  it  is  true,"  &.c.  is 
forged  and  interpolated. 

In  page  97  of  the  Translation,  there  are  twelve  lines  of  the  Latin 
struck  out.  These  are  from  Ambrose,  who  says  "  Christ  is  the 
Rock,"  and  that  Christ  conferred  his  peculiar  titles  on  the  twelve 
disciples.  Why  this  is  dropped  is  very  clear!  But  the  forgery  stops 
not  here.  The  words  of  the  compilers  of  the  catechism,  written 
many  ages  after  Ambrose  died,  are  put  into  his  mouth,  and  he  is 
made  to  talk  like  a  thorough-paced  papist,  by  leaving  in  the 
words — *'  St.  Ambrose  saith,"  and  then  erasing  all  he  had  said, 
and  making  him  father  a  long  paragraph  composed  in  the  IGthcen- 
tury,  on  the  power  of  the  popes  !  Is  this  less  than  infamous?  As 
we  have  already  given  many  more  specimens  of  this  corrupt  trans- 
lation, we  need  not  now  enlarge  ;  but  I  here  challenge  Mr.  Hughes 
to  meet  me  on  this  book  before  any  number  of  Latin  scholars, 
and  I  will  convict  this  shameful  edition  of  twenty  deliberate  and 
glaring  frauds  which  have  been  evidently  committed  with  design. 
And  yet  the  gentleman  has  ventured  to  charge  me  witli  calumny 
when  I  expose  these  enormities. 

But  these  frauds  do  not  stop  with  poor  St.  Ambrose,  nor  are  they 
confined  to  the  translators  of  the  catechism.  By  the  authority, 
not  only  of  popes,  but  oUnfallible  councils,  a  regular  warfare  has  been 
carried  on  for  ages  against  all  free  enquiry  ;  all  writers  not  friendly 
to  Rome  have  been  denounced ;  Roman  Catholic  writers  have 
been  purged  of  unwelcome  truths;  they  have  poisoned  the  foun- 
tains of  antiquity;  they  have  dared  to  prune  and  correct  the  writings 
of  the  fathers,  and  even  ventured  to  lay  their  correcting  and,  sacri- 
legious hands  on  the  Word  of  God.  The  prohibitory  and  expurga- 
tory  indexes  of  Rome  are  living  monuments  of  these  daring  frauds. 


427 

A  copy  of  one  of  these  works,  making  a  large  volume,  is  now  in 
my  possession,  and  has  been  already  exhibited  by  me  to  this  assem- 
bly. 

I.  Spexijicatinn. — Modern  writers  pruned  and  altered.  In  the 
year  1595,  (1)  Clement  VIH,  in  his  catalogue  of  prohibited  books, 
published  a  decree,  of  which  the  following  is  an  extract.  In  libris 
Catholicorum  recontiorum,  qui  post  annum  Christianse  salutis — 
1515,  conscripti  sint,  si  id  quod  corrigendum  occurrit,  paucis 
demplis,  aut  additis  emendari  posse  videatur,  id  correctores  faci- 
endum curent;  sin  minus,  omnino  deleatur.  '^  In  the  books  of 
modern  Catholics,  ivritten  since  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1515,  if 
any  thing  should  occur  worthy  of  correction,  and  it  can  be  done 
by  striking  out  or  putting  in  a  few  things,  let  the  correctors  have 
it  done;  but  if  not,  let  it  be  ivholly  erasedy  The  year  1515 
marks  the  rise  of  Luther!-  Hence  the  Pope  fixed  on  that  era  for 
his  special  vigilance  over  the  press  ! 

II.  Specification. —  The  Fathers  corrupted.  If  any  one  wishes 
to  be  fully  informed  on  this  subject,  let  him  examine  James's 
Treatise  on  this  subject.  (2) 

a.  The  sixth  canon  of  the  Apostles.  "  Let  not  a  bishop,  a 
priest,  in  any  sort  upon  pretence  o^  religion,  forsake  his  own  wife. 
But  if  he  chance  to  do  so,  let  him  be  excommunicated  ;  or  if  he 
continue,  let  him  be  degraded." 

It  has  thus  been  forged  by  Roman  Catholic  hands — "or  if  he 
continue  m /u*.s  e?Tor,  let  him  be  degraded."  The  true  passage 
means — if  he  continue  Xo  forsake  his  wife,  he  is  to  be  degraded. 
The  forgery  makes  it  mean,  that  if  he  continue  to  keep  his  unfe  he 
is  to  be  degraded.  This  is  the  way  the  celibacy  of  the  priesthood 
is  proved.  We  have  already  showed  how  it  is  compensated  by 
concubines,  S^c.  S^c. 

b.  Thirty-second  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Agatha  it  is  written, 
*'  Let  a  clergyman  presume  to  sue  no  man  before  a  temporal 

judge,^'  (^c.  But  it  has  been  forged  to  mean  the  very  opposite  by 
changing  clericus  into  clericum,  and  nullum  into  nullus.  Then  it 
reads  "  Let  no  man  presume  to  sue  a  clergyman  before  a  secular 

judge  T'  Thus  Bellarmine  uses  it;  and  in  his  controversy  with 
Barklay,  page  279,  tries  to  excuse  it.  This  passage  shows  not 
only  ^  fraud,  but  a  fraud  to  exalt  the  priesthood,  and  put  down  the 
laity. 

c.  The  Fourth  Council  of  Carthage — (3)  "  Let  no  woman,  though 
she  be  a  religious  woman  or  learned,  in  presence  of  men  presume 
so  far  as  to  baptise  any."  This  is  the  true  passage.  But  to  magnify 
baptism  and  the  priesthood,  baptism  is  made  necessary  to  salvation, 
even  to  the  dying  infant.  Hence  they  needed  a  plan  to  apply  it 
in  all  cases.     But  this  passage  is  in  their  way;  so  there  has  been 

(1)  See  Campbell's  Lectures  Ecc.  Hist.  p.  349. 

(2)  No.  3507  of  the  Philadelphia  Library  Company. 

(3)  Chap.  99, 100. 


428 

added  to  it  these  words — unless  it  be  in  case  of  necessity.     This 
forgery  opens  the  door  for  nurses  to  baptize  infants. 

d.  St.  Ambrose(l) — *' They  have  not  Peter's  inheritance  which 
have  not  Peter's  (fidem)  faith.^^  Gratian  corrupted  this  into 
"Peter's  (sedem)  chair!" 

e.  Chrysostom  (2) — "  It  (the  seed  of  the  woman)  shall  bruise 
thy  head."  To  honour  the  Virgin  Mary,  it  is  forged  to  read  '^she 
shall  bruise  thy  head." 

f.  Preface  to  the  Council  ofEphesus.  The  true  reading  is  this, 
"  In  which  Council  presided  the  blessed  Cyril,  formerly  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,"  &c.  It  is  thus  forged,  to  j^ro/?  the  papacy,  "In 
which  Council  instead  of  the  blessed  Celestine  the  Pope,  presided 
the  blessed  St.  Cyril!"  James  gives  no  less  than  fifty  specimens 
of  this  pruning  and  corrupting  o^  \\\e  Fathers  and  Councils  in  the 
first  few  centuries. 

g.  Finally,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  himself,  in  our  late  contro- 
versy cited  Tertullian  (3)  to  prove  the  primacy  of  Rome  and  the 
supremacy  of  the  Pope  ;  and  made  it  seem  to  be  really  so,  by  garb- 
ling the  author,  and  applying  all  he  said  to  Rome  alone.  Whereas, 
theyw// passage  which  1  published  in  parallel  lines  with  his  ellip- 
tical exix^oi,  declares  that  Corinth,  Philippi,  Thessalonica,  and 
Ephesus  were  all  apostolical  chairs,  as  well  as  Rome  !! 

III.  Specification. —  The  holy  word  of  God  itself  has  been 
CORRUPTED  ivitli  wantou  profaneness  by  the  Church  of  Ro^ne. 
Out  of  a  crowd  of  examples  we  give  a  ^qw. 

a.  The  Vulgate  Bible  and  the  English  translation  of  it  sanctify 
the  forgery  on  Chrysostom  cited  above,  (4)  "  she  shall  bruise  thy 
head,"  i.  e.  the  Virgin  Mary,  we  suppose — instead  of  "  zV,"  thy 
seed,  i.  e.  Christ. 

6.  Hebrews  xi.  21,  "  Jacob  worshipped  the  top  oHiis  staff" — 
in  support  of  the  worship  of  images.  V^hereas  the  true  rendering 
is  "  worshipped  on  (that  is,  leaning  on)  the  top  of  his  staff!" 

c.  Luke  xiii.  3,  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  unless  ye  dj 
penance,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish."  Whereas,  the  true  meaning 
is,  unless  yc  repent;  which  we  need  not  say  is  a  thing  wholly 
different  from  doing  penance  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

d.  Immediately  after  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes, 
1685,  a  duly  prepared  version  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  French 
tongue  was  extensively  circulated  for  the  conversion  of  Protestants. 
Mr.  Butler  in  his  "  Book  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,"  thus 
writes — "  At  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes,^/?/  thousand 
copies  of  a  French  translation  of  the  New  Testament  were,  at  the 
recommendation  of  Bossuet,  distributed  among  the  converted 
Protestants,  by  order  of  Louis  X/F."     Now,  let  us  examine  the 

(1)  Lib.  1.  de  Poenit.  cap.  vi.,  torn.  4. 

(2)  17  Homily  on  Genesis,  chap.  iii.  v.  15. 

(3)  See  page  74  of  VVhetham's  edition. 

(4)  On  Gen.  iii.  15. 


429 

character  of  this  translation,  of  whose  dissemination  the  author  so 
nnuch  boasts;  and  which  was  issued  under  such  high  authority. 
Acts,  xiii.  2,  the  true  passage  is,  "As  they  minislered  unto  the 
Lord,"  &LC.  The  Bourdeaux  translation  has  it,  *'  As  they  sacrijiccd 
unto  the  Lord  tlie  sacrifice  of  mass.''  1  Cor.  iii.  15,  "  If  any  man's 
work  shall  be  burned,  he  shall  suffer  loss;  but  he  himself  shall  be 
saved  ;  yet  so  as  by  tire."  The  Roman  Catholic  version  interpo- 
lates the  words  "  of  purgatory,"  so  as  to  make  it  read,  "  He  shall 
be  saved  by  the  fire  of  jmrgatori/.''  1  Tim.  iv.  ],  "  In  the  latter  ' 
times  some  shall  depart  from  the  faith."  The  Roman  Catholic  ver- 
sion forges  the  word  "  Roman, "making  it  read,  '*  shall  depart  from 
the  Koman  faithr  Such  frauds  and  forgeries  on  the  sacred  text 
itself,  discover  the  desperate  extremities  and  reckless  spirit  of  a 
system,  which,  in  order  to  carry  its  own  ends,  dares  to  pollute  even 
the  sacred  fountain  of  divine  truth.  (1)  Here,  then,  is  my  answer 
to  the  gentleman's  charge  of  calumny.  Let  heaven  and  earth 
judge  between  us. 

7th.  He  charges  me  with  calumny  for  saying  "that  Catholics 
call  the  Pope  God!"  I  said  in  the  late  controversy  that  the  Pope 
called  himself  God.  On  a  previous  evening  hov.ever  in  this  de- 
bate, I  fully  proved  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Rev.  gentleman's  own 
translator  and  friend,  that  the  Pope  did  call  himself  God.  Not 
only  so,  but  it  was  also  shown  at  the  same  time,  that  the  Pope  was 
worshipped  at  Rome  as  God,  and  that  the  titles  and  attributes  of 
God  had  been  conferred  on  him  by  standard  writers  in  the 
Church  of  Rome;  and  with  the  sanction  of  councils  themselves. 

8th.  The  Rev.  gentleman  charges  me  with  calumniating  his 
church  by  asserting  that  its  doctrines  are  opposed  to  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty.  This  charge  I  have  made  good  by  the  unanswered 
and  accumulating  arguments  of  the  whole  debate — to  which  in 
general  I  now  refer.  But  he  specifies  the  Twenty-seventh  Canon 
of  the  third  Lateran,  which  1  adduced,  and  says  it  is  inadequate 
proof  in  itself,  and  that  1  suppressed  a  part  of  it.  He  says,  ''and 
whereas  said  canon  is  no  part  of  the  Catholic  religion."  Strange! 
Does  he  renounce  it,  or  denounce  it?  Is  it  not  as  much  a  part  of 
his  religion  as  the  directions  in  our  confession  of  faith  about  op- 
posing false  religions  and  removing  the  monuments  of  idolatry  are 
a  part  of  ours?  \i'\^  discipline  w\\\\  him  to  remove  millions  of 
men  out  of  the  world — but  it  is  doctrine  with  us  to  remove  only 
the  monuments  of  idolatry  ? 

Again.  He  says  this  canon  was  "a  special  regulation  for  a 
particular  case,  made  in  concurrence  with  the  civil  power  from 
which  alone  it  could  derive  its  authority.'''  But  luho  made  it? 
He  acknowledges  that  it  was  made  with  the  civil  poiver  from 
which  it  derived  its  authority;  and  made  by  the  council!  Then 
he  owns  that  such  a  union  of  church  and  state  may  be  made  as 
ihat  the  church  may  derive  authority  to  raise  an  army  and  put 
<^)  See  Rev.  xxii.  18,  19. 


430 

midlitudes  of  men  to  death,  sack  their  towns,  and  make  slaves  of 
them,;  for  a  part  of  the  decree  published  by  nie  is  this,  "and  let 

IT  BE   FREELY  PERMITTED   TO    PRINCES    TO    REDUCE    MEN    OF    SUCH 

STAMP  TO  SLAVERY."  This  too  is  done  by  the  representative 
church  ;  and  that  clmrch  in  said  decree  says,  "  ^Ve  inhibit  them^^ 
(who  fail  to  take  up  arms  at  the  call  of  the  Bishop)  from  a  par- 
ticipatio7i  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord — and  on  the  con- 
trary, those  who  take  up  arms  were  ''received  into  the  protection 
of  the  church,''''  and  large  indulgences  were  granted  to  them  by 
the  church.  Here  then  the  gentleman  owns  that  if  the  state  will 
give  the  chur c\\  poiver,  she  may,  as  she  did,  enslave,  fight,  curse, 
and  kill  men;  may  reward  those  ivho  do,  and  excommunicate 
those  who  do  not  help  her  to  do  these  things.  Is  not  this  church 
and  state?  Is  not  this  opposing  civil  and  religious  liberty?  He 
says  "i^  is  diciplineV  \Gx\\y\  But  does  the  Roman  doctrine 
tolerate  such  discipline?  Does  it  forbid  it?  Does  it  not  enforce 
it?  What  matter  to  the  persons  put  to  death,  whether  you  call  the 
sword  discipline  ox  doctrine?  And  what  if  the  ^vernment  of  the 
United  States  should  give  "  authority"  to  the  Pope  to  destroy  us 
heretics?  Would  it  be  right?  certainly;  as  the  council  did,  and 
as  the  defender  of  it  says  J 

But  again  he  says,  "  Mr.  B.  suppressed  the  section  which  enu- 
merates the  crimes  of  the  sects  referred  to,  and  thereby  deceives 
his  readers  by  making  it  appear  that  the  punishment  was  for  spe- 
culative errors  in  doctrine,  and  not  for  their  crimes  against  society 
and  the  state."  He  falsely  charges  me  with  suppressing.  I  fol- 
lowed Faber,  and  he  gave  all  that  was  necessary  (making  one 
page)  to  prove  the  persecution  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
But  see  his  reasoning.  The  church  has  a  right  to  punish,  even 
to  death,  men  who  are  guilty  of  cri77ies  against  society  and  states. 
This  he  admits.  This  is  the  very  point.  I  say  she  has  not.  What 
has  she  to  do  with  punishing  crimes  against  society  and  the  states, 
with  temporal  pains  and  penalties ! !  It  matters  little  whether  the 
church  persecute  for  opinions,  or  for  crimes.  It  was  not  for  crimes, 
but  for  opinions  that  the  Church  of  Rome  put  these  poor  people  to 
death.  But  admit  all  the  crimes  that  are  charged.  Does  the 
gentleman  say  that  for  them  his  church  can  punish  men  temporally. 
Yes  this  is  the  plea.  Let  my  country  hear,  and  pause,  and 
think! 

9th.  Charge  of  calumny  is  this — that  I  quoted  a  hull  for  the  ex- 
termination of  heretics,  which  is  not  preserved  at  Rome.  The 
copy  of  the  bull  (in  translation)  was  then,  and  is  now  in  my  pos- 
session. I  have  sent  to  England  for  the  original.  The  gentleman 
knows  there  is  such  a  bull.  He  knows  too  that  Popes  suppress 
bulls  when  they  are  found  to  injure  them.  He  may  not  know  that 
even  the  infamous  Bulla  in  Coena  Domini,  (which  he  told  us  lately 
he  never  saw) — but  which  all  the  papal  world  besides  knoios — which 
for  centuries  has  sent  all  mankind  to  hell  but  papists,  and  which 


431 

he  is  bound  in  virtue  of  iioly  obedience  to  read  during  lent  every 
year  ;  I  say  he  may  not  know  that  this  bull  is  not  printed  in  the 
'Bullarium  Magnum. 

10th.  Calumny,  I  am  charged  with  a  long  catalogue  of  sins 
against  the  Third  Canon  of  Fourth  Lateran.  This  canon  1  read 
and  expounded  at  large  on  a  former  evening.  As  to  the  charges  of 
garbling  this  canon,  the  falsification  of  the  gentleman's  charges  will 
also  be  found  in  the  debate  of  a  former  evening,  to  which  1  refer 
this  assembly. 

As  to  the  matter  of  the  decree  itself,  he  says,  Mr.  B.  asserted, 
**  that  according  to  this  canon,  sovereigns  may  be  deposed,  and 
their  subjects  released  from  their  allegiance  when  they  become 
heretics,  and  that  they  are  to  be  excommunicated  when  they  ne- 
glect to  exterminate  heretics  from  their  land."  He  again  denies 
that  this  is  doctrine.  This  is  too  shallow  an  artifice  to  deceive  a 
school  boy.  He  admits  it  is  "doctrine  so  far  as  it  condemns  all 
heresies  in  the  abstract.''''  Well,  and  what  if  it  condemns  heresy 
in  the  concrete;  that  is  in  ihe  jjersons  of  men?  Is  it  doctrine  no 
more?  Is  a  decree  condemning  a  book,  doctrine;  and  the  same 
decree  condemning  a  man  for  holding  the  doctrine  in  the  book 
discipline?  One  is  doctrine;  the  other  is  doctrine  and  discipline. 
Is  it  doctrine  to  condemn  a  book  to  the  flames,  and  discipline  to 
condemn  a  man  to  them?  Now  this  decree  condemned  the  doc- 
trines of  millions,  AND  THEIR  PERSONS  TOO !  It  is  the  most 
bloody  document  I  ever  read.  Mr.  Hughes  admits  that  it  absolves 
the  subjects  oiinferior  lords  from  allegiance!  Yet  denies  that  it 
does  those  of  lords  who  were  chief  But  is  not  the  principle  the 
same?  Is  it  not  persecution,  tyranny,  and  usurpation  not  to  be 
borne  or  defended  ? 

Again  the  decree  embraces  "  secular  powers  whatsoever  offices 
they  are  in?''''  Does  this  exclude  any  high  or  low?  It  says, 
*'  saving  the  right  of  the  principal  lord;'"*  but  with  this  sweeping 
proviso,  '''if  so  be  he  himself  put  no  obstacle  thereto,  nor  oppose 
any  impediment !'''  Yet  Mr.  Hughes  has  the  hardihood  to  deny 
that  the  sovereigns  or  principal  lords  are  embraced  in  the  decree. 
This  cruel,  persecuting  canon,  pays  its  bloody  soldiery  with  hea- 
venly gifts  for  exterminating  heretics.  It  excommunicates  all  the 
friends  of  the  heretics;  it  makes  the  heretic  intestate,  infamous, 
and  deprives  him  of  all  civil  and  religious  rights;  if  a  clergyman 
he  is  deposed :  and  twice  a  year  if  necessary  every  prelate  is  to 
make  the  circuit  of  his  territory  to  search  for  heretics  :  and  compel 
the  whole  neighbourhood  to  swear  to  iiform  on  heretics,  and  those 
who  refuse  to  swear,  or  swearing  neglect  to  inform,  are  to  be 
reputed  heretics ;  and  Bishops  are  put  under  canonical  vengeance 
if  they  refuse  to  act.  Did  Draco's  laws  equal  these?  Does  the 
police  of  Constantinople  probe  and  detail  in  such  detail,  and  such 
ubiquity  as  this?  And  yet  this  no  persecution  !  Not  opposed  to 
all  sorts  of  liberty,  or  if  opposed,  not  doctrine' !      God  save  our 


432 

country  from  a  system,  which,  with  honied  doctrines  and  smooth 
words,  may  by  discipline  bathe  the  land  in  blood  ! 

11th,  and  lastly.  The  gentleman  has  on  divers  occasions  charged 
me  with  calumniating  the  Church  of  Rome  by  exaggerated  ac- 
counts of  the  number  of  lives  which  have  been  destroyed  by  her 
agency,  authority,  or  influence.  Now  as  our  chief  object  was  to 
establish  principles,  we  have  confined  ourselves  for  the  most  part 
to  the  discussion  of  principles ;  and  having  abundantly  proved  that 
persecution,  even  to  death,  is  a  •principle  of  the  Church  of  Kome^ 
upon  lohich  she  has  acted  for  a^es,  the  amount  of  blood  she  has 
shed  in  carrying  out  these  principles  is  a  second  question.  The 
blood  which  she  has  shed  is  a  fearful  standing  commentary  on 
her  principles;  and  she  has  shed  enough  io  float  a  man  of  war  ! 

Specifications. — 1.  The  crusades  for  liberating  the  Holy  Land 
originated  ivith  and  were  encouraged  and  impelled  by  the  popes 
and  the  priesthood,  and  Councils  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  These 
continued  for  about  two  centuries,  under  the  significant  title  of 
"  the  Holy  war,''''  with}  no  less  than  eight  expeditions,  and  the 
slaughter  on  both  sides  of  several  millions  of  men.  These  were 
sanctioned  and  urged  by  Popes  Gregory  VII.,  Martin  II.,  Inno- 
cent III.,  &/C.  In  vol.  ii.  p.  309,  of  the  Acta  Ecclesiae,  we  have 
a  long  decree  of  the  Fourth  Council  of  Lateran,  headed  "  Expe- 
dition for  the  recovery  of  the  Holy  Land.""  This  decree  ordains 
a  Christian  army  ;  gives  great  indulgences  to  the  cross-bearers  ; 
yea,  even  2i  plenary  pardon  to  them  of  all  their  sins,  and  increase 
of  eternal  joy  in  the  rewards  of  the  just,  and  adding  appropriate 
and  most  holy  curses  upon  all  those  who  should  in  any  vmy  hin- 
der the  success  of  these  bloody  expeditions.  Several  millions  of 
Europeans  and  Asiatics  were  the  victims  of  these  Holy  ivars; 
and  the  guilt  of  their  blood  is  charged  to  the  Church  of  Rome. 

2.  The  persecutions  against  the  Albigenses,  Waldenses,  and 
Wicklifiites  were  commissioned  by  holy  councils,  preached  up  and 
pressed  on  by  the  bulls  of  popes,  and  the  ministry  of  bishops,  inqui- 
sitors, &c.,  and  from  age  to  age,  carried  out  on  the  most  bloody 
principles  of  persecution  by  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  is  impossible 
to  compute  the  multitudes,  not  only  of  men,  but  of  women  and 
children,  slaughtered  ^in  these  crusades.  Bruys  (1)  estimates  that 
100,000  Albigenses  fell  in  one  day.  Mezerai  and  Velly  compute 
the  number  slain  in  storming  the  city  of  Beziers  at  60,000.  (2) 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  thinks  these  massacres  may  he  justified, 
because,  as  he  says,  the  victims  were  not  innocent  victims,  but 
wicked  men,  and  the  enemies  of  society.  We  are  thankful  for  his 
candour  though  he  meant  it  for  a  defence.  He  speaks  in  this  the 
spirit  and  language  of  his  church  ;  for  it  is  a  matter  ot  history,  that 

(1)  Vol.  iii.p.  139.^ 

(2)  See  Edgar,  p.  252.  See  also  on  these  crusades,  Thnanus,  AUix's  History 
of  the  Waldensep  and  Albigenses,  Jones's  Hist,  of  the  same.  Mosheim's  Eccle- 
siastical History,  as  well  as  Brnys,  Mezerai  and  Velly,  passim. 


433 

the  provincial  Councils  of  Toledo,  Oxford,  Tours,  Avignon,  La- 
baur,  Montpelier,  Narbonne,  Albjy,  and  Tolosa,  sanctioned  the 
sanguinary  spirit  of  persecution,  and  not  only  so,  but  the  general 
Councils  of  the  Four  Laterans  of  Constance  and  Sienna  did  the 
same. (I) 

3.  The  history  of  the  Holy  Inquisition,  which  we  have  proved  on 
a  previous  occasion,  to  have  the  Pope  for  its  head,  infallible  autho- 
rity for  its  cruelties,  and  the  whole  world  for  its  field.  Even  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Hughes  has  said  it  was  a  good  institution  abused;  the 
Bishop  of  Aire  justifies  it  for  putting  guilty  victims  (that  is,  Pro- 
testants) to  death;  Bellarmine  not  only  justifies  but  recommends 
it,  and  says,  that  by  this  and  other  means,  (2)  almost  an  infinite 
number  of  heretics  were  burned  or  otherwise  put  to  death  by  the 
Church;  and  he  instances.Donatists,  Manichseans,  and  Albigenses, 
who  were  routed  and  annihilated  by  arms.  Devoti  also  honestly 
defends  the  Inquisition.  Now,  in  Spain  alone,  according  to  the 
history  of  I.  A.  Llorenie,  secretary  to  the  Inquisition,  in  a  little 
more  than  two  centuries  the  victims  of  the  Inquisition,  burned  or 
otherwise  punished,  were  no  less  than  341,057.  The  horrors  of 
this  infamous  tribunal  we  will  not  attempt  to  describe  ;  its  secrets 
will  never  be  known  until  the  great  day  of  revelation.  The  num- 
ber of  its  victims  in  various  forms  and  lands,  while  it  ruled  the 
nations  with  a  rod  of  iron,  must  indeed  have  been  fearfully  great. 

4.  'The  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew's  day,  the  revocation  of 
the  Edict  of  Nantes,  the  massacre  in  cold  blood  of  the  Protestants 
of  Ireland,  the  sanguinary  persecutions  by  the  Duke  of  Alva  in 
Holland,  where  Father  Paul  says  (3)  50,000  were  hanged, 
beheaded,  buried  alive,  and  burned  in  a  short  time;  the  destruction 
of  the  Wickliffites,  Lollards,  and  Culdees;  the  persecutions  of  Bo- 
hemia ;  the  suppression,  by  force,  of  the  reformation  in  Italy  and 
Spain  ;  and  the  millions  massacred  by  Catholics  in  South  America  ; 
make  a  picture  of  wickedness  on  the  one  hand,  and  woe  on  the 
other,  which  no  created  mind  can  adequately  describe  or  ever 
conceive.  Add  to  this,  that  for  centuries  the  potentates  of  Europe, 
by  the  mixture  of  church  and  state,  under  a  theocracy,  of  which  the 
Pope  was  God,  were  held  bound  by  oath  to  exterminate  and  destroy 
in  their  dominions  all  heretics  and  dissenters  from  the  Church  of 
Rome.  In  the  Cementines  (4)  there  is  a  long  chapter,  headed — 
"  Oaths  of  fidelity  lohich  the  Roman  Emperors  take  to  the  Pope 
of  Rome,''  which  fully  confirms  what  we  have  just  said.  Now, 
consider  in  connexion  with  this  the  TnilUons  slaughtered  by  the 
kings  and  emperors  of  Europe  under  the  obligation  of  these  oaths 
against  heretics  and  dissenters  from  Rome,  and  then  add  all  these 

(1)  Hoe  Dupiii,  Labheus,  Ciabbe,  Ciniiius,  Alexander,  Bruys,  Guibeil,  and 
Crotty. 

(2)  Book  ii.  chap.  22  and  23,  on  iho  Laity. 

'3)  Page  387.  (4)  Book  ii.  tit.  'J. 

55 


434 

parts  together,  and  you  have  some  imperfect  idea  of  the  butcheries 
of  Holy  Mother  Church. 

I  cannot  close  this  article  without  indulging  myself  and  my 
hearers  with  an  extract  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hughes's  Ninth  Letter  of 
the  late  Controversy  ;  in  which  it  will  be  seen  at  a  glance,  that  he 
advances  principles  which  will  go  to  justify  all  the  great  persecu- 
tions of  the  Church  of  Rome  :  principles  which  vest  the  civil  and 
religious  rights  of  men  in  the  power  of  a  despot  or  of  a  mojority  ; 
principles  which  will  jus,tify  the  Roman  Catholics  wheneverthey  get 
the  majority  in  this  country  in  shaping  the  government  of  the 
state  and  the  church  so  as  to  take  away  all  constitutional  liberty 
from  both  ;  principles  too,  which  he  advanced  in  defending  the  per- 
secuting Canon  of  Fourth  Lateran.  "  It  is  tobe  observed  in  the  first 
place  that  this  Council  was  held  at  a  time  when  the  feudal  system 
was  in  full  operation.  A  cowncil  was  as  it  were  i\\e  general  congress 
of  Christendom,  in  which  states  and  sovereigns  were  represented 
for  the  purpose  of  conferring  together  on  such  matters  as  concerned 
the  general  welfare.  These  secular  representatives  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  definitions  of  doctrines  or  morals  ;  and  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  church  had  nothiyig  to  do  with  any  thing  else. 
Still  it  was  deemed  the  most  convenient  time  and  place  for 
sovereigns  and  states  to  adopt  such  means,  in  conjunction  with 
the  clergy,  as  might  protect  the  altar  and  the  throne,  or  as  the 
exigencies  of  the  period  required.  The  social  picture,  mingled 
theocracy  and  civil  policy  of  the  puritan  settlements  hi  New 
England,  presents  but  a  diminutive  analogy,  when  the  pil- 
grim fathers  and  their  immediate  successors  (not  to  speak  of 
other  things  far  more  serious)  would  hardly  ring  the  town- 
house  bell  unless  they  found  a  text  of  scripture  for  it.''^  Here,  mark 
that  the  gentleman  owns  the  fact  of"  a  theocracy''''  in  that  day  of 
Rome's  supreme  dominion  over  men's  souls  and  bodies.  You 
remember  how  he  attacked  \dL\.e\y ,  and  denounced  the  persecutions 
of  New  England,  and  read  long  extracts  against  them,  lie  rightly 
condemned  them — but  here,  he  is  off  his  guard,  and  on  the  same 
principles  defends  Rome.  Now,  if  Rome  was  right  against  the 
Albigenses,  was  New  England  wrong?  If  New  England  and 
Rome  were  alike  in  this,  how  can  he  condemn  New  England? 
Let  the  logic  of  Rome  explain  it !  Again  (same  page)  he  writes — 
**  So  it  was  in  the  temporal  regulations  adopted  by  the  commin- 
gled representatives  of  church  and  state  at  the  General  Councilof 
Lateran.  Had  they  not  the  right,  I  would  ask,  as  the  majori- 
ty by  a  million  to  one,  to  take  measures  for  the  common  welfare  ? 
The  doctrine  of  Christ  teaches  submission  to  '  the  powers  that  be.' 
Consequences  such  as  you  predictedofihe  Bible  Society  in  Russia^ 
have  always  followed  the  footsteps  of  fanaticism.  Had  not  then  the 
Catholic  kings,  and  Catholic  barons,  and  CatholIc  vassals, 
and  all  the  orders  o{  feudalism  in  Catholic  Europe,  the  right 
by  virtue  of  their  majority  to  take  precautions  against  suck 


435 

CONSEQUENCES?  No  REPUBLICAN,  I  sliould  think, vvould  deny  it !" 
Thus,  we  see,  how  he  denies  all  constUutlonuU  original,  impre- 
scriptible rights,  and  GIVES  to  the  powers  that  be,  to  an  autocrat, 
or  a  majority,  the  right  to  stop  the  circulation  of  the  Bible,  or  to 
destroy  the  minority,  if  their  own  interest  depends  on  it,  and  yet 
talks  about  republican-r-a.nd  about  rights !  His  principle  clearly 
is,  that  7ninorities  have  no  rights.  How  this  coincides  with 
the  more  candid  Bellarmine  !  (1)  *' When  the  question  is,  whe- 
ther heretics,  thieves,  and  other  wicked  men  are  to  be  extirpated 
it  is  always  to  be  considered,  according  to  the  purpose  of  the  Lord, 
whether  it  can  be  done  without  injury  of  the  good,  (Catholics)  and 
if  indeed  it  can  be  done,  THEN  without  doubt  they  are  to 
BE  extirpated  ;  but  if  it  cannot  be  done,  because  they  are  not 
sufficiently  known,  and  there  is  danger  of  injuring  the  innocent 
instead  of  the  guilty ;  or  they  be  stronger  than  we,  and 
there  is  danger  if  we  meet  them  in  battle  that  more  may 

FALL    AMONG    US    THAN    AMONG    THEM,  in    SUch    CaSC   WC  should    be 

quiet." 

(1)  Vol.  iii.  chap.  22,  de  Laicis. 


4  30 


«/?  the  Presbyterian  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opjwsed  to  civil  or  i^eligioiis  liber ty .?" 


AFFIRMATIVE  V.— MR.  HUGHES. 

Mr.  President, 
You  have  heard  what  the  gentleman  has  put  forth,  and  it  would 
be  difficult  to  lind,  in  our  language,  a  single  word  expressive 
enough  to  convey  an  idea  of  its  character.     It  is,  if  I  may  borrow 
a  term  from  the  Spanish,  an  "  olla-podrida."     It  is  like  the  varie- 
gated robe  with  which  parental  fondness  clothed  the  patriarchal 
boy ;   and  the  variety  of  its  colours  furnishes  intrinsic  evidence, 
that  patriarchal  hands  have  been  employed  in  patching  it  up. 
But  whatever  it  is,  you  all  know  what  it  is  not — an  answer  to 
my  speech.     And,  far  from  complaining  that  the  gentleman  has 
invoked  the  aid  of  friendship  in  his  extremity,  I  am  delighted  that 
he  has  friends,  and  that  they  have  had  sense  enough  not  to  attempt 
a  refutation  of  my  arguments.    The  propositions  of  my  last  speech, 
therefore,  are  tacitly  admitted  as  unanswerable.     Not  a  single 
exception  taken  at  my  authorities — not  a  single  attempt  to  dis- 
prove the  correctness  of  my  reasoning.     I  confess  that  of  a  train 
of  argument,   founded   on   facts,   which   exhibited   the   doctrines 
of  the  "  Confession  of  Faith"  as  authorizing  and  leading  lo 
bloodshed,  in  every  country  in  which  the  civil  constitution  did  not 
restrain  its  intolerance,  (as  in  the  United  States  now,)  I  did  expect 
that  tiiere  would  be  some  attempt  at  refutation.     But  the  reverse 
is  the  case ;  and  it  proves  that  the  wisdom  of  older  men  cannot 
extricate   the   Presbyterian   religion  from   the  predicament,  into 
which  it  has  been  brought  by  the  imprudence  of  the  gentleman. 
There  it  sticks;  and,  until  tiistory  can  be  blotted  out  from  the 
memory  of  men,  there  it  will  continue,  undefended  and  indefensi- 
ble ;  from  the  indelible  charge  of  having  shed  the  blood  of  men,  for 
conscience'  sake,  and  that  on  a  principle  of  doctrine — which  is 
still  retained  in  its  public  creed. 

He  mistook  his  subject  when  he  promised  to  defend  it.  Talents 
superior  to  his,  would  be  shipwrecked  in  the  undertaking.  His 
talents  lie  in  another  way;  his  forte  is  the  "abuse  of  popery." 
This  discussion  will  have  taught  him  more  of  Presbyterian  his- 
tory than  he  ever  knew  before ;  and,  I  trust,  he  will  have  gleaned 
from  the  improvement  of  his  knowledge,  the  wholesome  moral  of 
the  old  adage,  "  tJiat  men  q/"  GLASS  ought  not  to  throw  stones^ 


437 

He  assigns  as  a  reason  why  lie  does  not  attempt  to  meet  my  argu- 
ments, that  "lie  has  answered  tliem  already."  Sir,  a  grosser  im- 
position never  was  attempted  on  sectarian  credidity.  Exnminehis 
.speeches  from  heginning  to  end,  and  tell  me  WIIKRE,  or  WHEN 
he  has  answered  them!  To  my  quotations  from  history,  showing 
the  unextinguishahle  intolerance  of  Presbyterians,  he  has  opposed 
liis  ASSERTIONS.  Do  you  call  tha't  an  answer?  To  the 
Protestant  and  Presbyterian  authorities  quoted  by  me  to  prove 
their  doctrines  and  deeds  of  blood,  in  every  country  under  heaven, 
that  was  scourged  with  their  political  ascendancy,  he  opposes 
"certificates"  of  Bancroft,  or  somebody  else,  setting  forth  that 
they  were  a  pretty  good  kind  of  people.  Do  you  call  that  an 
answer?  I  prove  by  testimony  that  he  does  not  dispute,  that  the 
Quakers  and  other  "pestilent  lieretics,"  as  they  were  called, 
were  cropped  of  their  ears,  scourged  at  the  cart-tail,  and  hanged 
on  the  gallows,  for  having  exercised  liberty  of  conscience,  in 
opposition  to  Calvinism,  in  New  England — and  he  calls  this  evi- 
dence, "witch"  stories!  Now  is  this  an  answer?  I  show  him 
that  the  Baptists  were  put  to  death  by  the  Presbyterians  of  Switz- 
erland— and  he  says,  Oh,  that  was  in  Switzerland,  but  WE 
have  not  done  so,  in  this  COUNTRY,  since  the  REVOLU- 
TION. Do  you  call  that  an  answer  ?  I  show  him  that  in  Scot- 
land, the  Presbyterians  made  it  death  for  the  Catholic  to  have 
worshipped  "  three  times,"  according  to  the  dictates  of  his 
OWN  conscience  ;  and  to  this  he  replies,  that  his  Scotch  ancestors 
were  not  sound  in  the  faith.  Is  this  an  answer?  I  show  that 
his  church  holds  communion  with  all  those  churches — that  she 
receives  their  ministers — that  some  of  those  ministers  are  the 
very  men  who  are  stirring  up  religious  discord  in  the  republic 
now,  and  to  all  this  he  answers  NOTHING.  And  why  does 
he  answer  nothing?  Because  he  has  nothing  to  say  in  reply. 
The  same  principles  of  Presbyterian  doctrine  which  authorized 
the  use  of  the  AXE,  and  the  STAKE,  and  the  HALTER,  in 
other  countries,  have  ?iever  been  condemned^— hnve  never  been 
considered  as  a  departure  from  orthodoxy  by  the  Presbyterians 
of  the  United  States,  either  since  the  revolution  or  before.  The 
gentleman,  therefore,  must  woi  pretend  that  he  has  answered  these 
arguments,  when  he  has  not.  The  claim  of  his  creed  to  the 
political  support  of  the  magistrates  as  "  nursing  fathers  to  the 
church" — the  pretended  commandment  of  God  to  "remove  all 
false  worship" — contain  enough  of  the  DOCTRINE  of  perse- 
cution to  authorize  the  same  tragical  barbarities  which  they  pro- 
duced elsewhere.  They  point  out  the  end  which  the  Presbyte- 
rians are  bound  by  their  "  TENETS  OF  FAITH"  to  aim  at — 
and  all  scruple  as  to  the  means  by  which  this  end  is  to  be  accom- 
plished, are  suiUcicntly  taken  away  by  the  doctrine,  that  God  has 
unchangeably  "  FORE-ORDAINED  WHATSOEVER  COMES 
TO  PASS."* 


438 

And  before  I  proceed  to  develope  strll  further  the  radical  into- 
lerance and  tyranny  of  this  doctrine,  I  must  make  a  few  observa- 
tions to  show  the  unreasonableness  of  the  gentleman's  attempt  to 
decoy  me  away  from  the  subject  of  debate.  He  introduces  mat- 
ter which  is  out  of  order — foreign  to  the  question,  and  belonging 
to  the  former  part  of  this  discussion.  If  I  turn  aside  to  notice 
his  assertions,  (for  they  are  nothing  more,)  it  is.  manifest  that  I 
cannot  perform  the  operation  which  he  finds  so  painful,  viz.,  the 
dissection  of  Presbyterianism.  This  is  what  he  hopes  to  defeat. 
I  show  him  that  the  arguments  by  which  the  doctrine  of  his 
church  authorized  its  members  to  refute  all  heresies  and  false 
worship,  were  the  faggot,  and  the  block,  and  the  halter.  And,  in 
order  to  withdraw  the  eyes  of  the  public  from  the  contemplation 
of  this  horrible  truths  he  says,  "  why  does  not  Mr.  Hughes 
answer  this,  and  this — the  "  crusades,"  the  "  Inquisition,"  "  St. 
Bartholomew,"  "  licensed  brothels  at  Rome,"  "  mutilations  and 
forgeries  of  authors,"  &c.  &c.  &c.  &c.  &c.  I  reply  that  my 
reason  for  not  answering  them  now,  is,  first,  because  so  far  as 
they  are  falsely  said  to  have  been  evidences  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  Ccdholic  religion,  I  have  answered  them  already,  under 
their  proper  head,  in  the  former  question ;  to  which  I  refer  the 
audience  and  the  reader.  I  reply  secondly,  that  they  do  not  be- 
long to  this  question,  and  that  my  time  and  space  are  sacred  to 
Presbyterianism.  These  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  gentle- 
man's ruse  de  guerre,  to  decoy  me  from  exposing  the  reasons 
why  Presbyterians  ought  to  be  ashamed  to  speak  of  "  civil  and 
religious  liberty, ^^  is  an  artifice  of  which  a  generous  antagonist 
would  feel  discredited  by  stooping  to  avail  himself.  Lest,  how- 
ever, the  course  he  has  pursued  should  be  construed  illogically, 
and  an  inference  drawn  that  the  case  does  not  warrant,  I  submit 
the  following  remarks  and  proposal. 

1.  The  crusades  had  for  their  object  to  arrest  the  progress  of 
the  sworn  enemies  of  the  Christian  name.  The  learned  Protest- 
ants who  have  written  on  the  subject,  even  Southey  and  James, 
have  acknowledged  that  the  political  salvation  of  Europe  was 
secured  by  them.     James  declares  that  they  were  as  "  just  as 

ANY  wars  that  EVER  WERE  UNDERTAKEN." 

2.  The  Albigenses  were  public  enemies  of  the  state  and  of 
society  by  their  crimes.  They  were  put  down  by  the  civil 
power,  with  the  permission  and  the  recommendation  of  the  cler- 
gy— not  as  heretics,  but  as  heretics  who  committed  such  public 
disorders  as  no  government  could  tolerate.  Catholics,  guilty 
of  the  same  crimes,  would  have  been  put  down  in  the  same  way. 

3.  The  Hugonot  wars  in  France  were  wars  for  political  as- 
cendancy. The  doctrines  of  Calvin  had  taught  his  disciples  that 
sooner  than  his  gospel  should  not  triumph  in  politics,  as  well  as 
religion,  they  might  turn  their  arms  against  their  country  and 
their  king.     They  did  so,  but  they  did  not  succeed.     It  was  they 


439 

who  are  responsible  for  the  blood  that  was  shed  during  those 
melancholy  days.  Treachery  and  treason,  conspiracy  and  assas- 
sination had  been  employed  by  them,  to  accomplish  their  purpose. 
And,  though  treachery  was  employed  against  them,  no  principle 
of  the  Catholic  religion  was  ever  adduced  to  sanction  the  pro- 
ceeding of  St.  Bartholomeiv.  It  was  attempted  to  be  justified 
on  the  plea,  that  it  was  precisely  the  stratagem  which  the  Hugo- 
nots  themselves  had  intended  to  employ. 

4.  The  altering  of  books  is  introduced,  for  what  purpose  the 
gentleman  alone  can  tell.  The  only  reason  I  can  imagine,  is,  to 
cover  the  use  he  has  attempted  to  make  of  the  spurious  document, 
ascribed  to  Innocent  VIII.  He  says  the  bull  "  In  Coena  Domini" 
is  not  in  the  Bullarium  Magnum.  This  is  simply  untrue.  It 
is  found  in  Vol.  III.,  p.  282.  Down  to  the  pretended  Reforma- 
tion there  was  no  motive  to  alter  books,  since  all  were  Catholics. 
»^fter  that,  it  would  have  been  useless  and  absurd — since  the 
Protestants  would  know  the  fact.  The  true  reason,  therefore, 
was  to  guard  against  the  errors  which  the  new  religionists  were 
ever  zealous  to  foist  into  the  repiiblication  of  Catholic  ivorks. 
The  Scriptures,  the  Fathers,  the  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  were  all  to 
be  "  reformed''''  by  those  sly  alterations,  which  changed  the  Tnean- 
ing  of  the  author,  and  yet  preserved  the  title  of  the  book.  We 
have  instances  in  our  own  day,  to  prove  that  the  art  has  not  been 
lost  or  forgotten  by  Presbyterians.  The  Sunday  School  Union — 
and  the  American  Bible  Society,  in  sending  a  mutilated  Spanish 
Bible  to  the  South  Americans  with  a  "  lying  title  page,^^  are  cases 
directly  in  point. 

5.  As  to  charges  of  "  CALUMNIES,"  to  which  he  pretends 
now  to  give  a  REPLY,  I  shall  briefly  show  how  much  his  "  reply" 
is  worth.  1.  What  is  his  reply?  It  is  only  a  repetition  of  the 
calumnies  themselves.  2.  He  quotes,  when  he  quotes  at  all,  a 
garbled  word,  or  sentence,  and  adduces  it  as  evidence,  not  of  its 
meaning  in  the  original,  but  of  the  malicious  meanijig  which 
CALUMNY  has  ascribed  to  it — just  as  the  devil  quoted  Scripture,  to 
suit  his  purpose.  Let  the  gentleman  not  say  that  I  compare  him 
to  the  devil — I  only  borrow  an  illustratio7%.  3.  But  what  settles 
the  matter  is,  that  when  /  made  out  the  calumnies,  I  had  the 
ORIGINAL  TEXT  AND  CONTEXT  spread  out  on  the  table. 
Then  was  the  time  for  a  man  who  had  a  literary  reputation  either 
at  stake  or  in  prospect,  to  have  felt  laudably  indignant  at  the 
charge,  and  bent  over  the  page,  which  would  convict  or  acquit 
him.  Did  he  do  this?  Not  at  all.  I  specified  caluitiny  after 
calumny;  pointed. to  the  books,  not  Crampt's  "Text  Book  of 
Popery,"  not  Dr.  Miller's  ribaldrous  "  History  of  Popery,"  but 
the  ORIGINAL  BOOKS,  lohich  calumniators  dread;  I  clial- 
lenged  hJm  to  the  open  page ;  I  taunted  him  with  a  prediction 
that  he  would  wait  to  avail  himself  of  the  absence  of  the  books 
to  which  he  referred — but  all  in  vain !  A  candid  man  would  have 
said,    "  let  me  see  the  originals — I   am  glad   you  have  brought 


440 

them  lierc,  and  marked  the  references^  for  I  have  always  been 
taught  to  believe  those  statements;  and  I  have  no  wish  to  aid  in 
the  perpetuation  of  calumnies,  if  they  are  such.  I  shall  see  for 
myself,  and  not  depend  on  Faber  any  more."  Was  there  any  thinfr 
of  this  ?  Not  at  all.  He  said  something  about  his  character,  and 
promised,  "  with  (he permission  of  God,"  to  reply  to  the  charges — 
in  the  absence,  as  we  now  see,  of  the  only  witnesses  that  could 
convict  or  acquit  him— the  ORIGINAL  DOCUMENTS.  Here 
was  the  test. 

But  he  shall  not  escape  with  this.  The  calumnies  which  I 
charged  and  proved,  may  be  seen  under  the  former  head.  I  have 
still  the  original  works  in  my  library.  And  I  propose  that  two 
interpreters,  one  a  Catholic,  appointed  by  me;  the  other  a  Pres- 
byterian, appointed  by  Mr.  Breckinridge,  shall  appoint,  by  agree- 
ment, a  third,  neither  a  Catholic  nor  Presbyterian  ;  and  let  these, 
as  a  tribunal,  decide,  by  appecd  to  the  original  documents. 
I  propose  next  to  enter  into  a  bond,  with  security,  to  pay  one 
hundred  dollars  to  whoever  may  claim  it,  for  every  case  in  which 
I  do  not  succeed  to  convict  the  gentleman  of  the  calumnies 
alleged  by  me  against  him;  provided  that  he  or  any  of  his 
friends  will  enter  into  a  like  obligation,  of  paying  one  hundred 
dollars  for  every  instance  in  which  I  shall  convict  him.  The 
forfeit  to  be  given  in  such  charity  as  either  party  may  choose. 

This  will  test  the  measure  of  confidence  which  he  has  in  his 
pretended  "  reply."  This  will  test  how  far  his  friends  are  sin- 
cerely disposed  to  believe  that  his  statements  "  are  to  be  depended 
on."  This  will  test  whether  the  conscience  of  Presbyterianism 
is  as  ready  to  sacrifice  money,  as  it  is  to  immolate  truth.  To 
this  test  I  challenge  the  gentleman. 

Before  I  enter  on  the  continuation  of  the  general  argument,  I 
must  go  over  the  small  points  of  the  gentleman's  speech.  I  had 
said,  that  the  only  denomination  of  Protestants  who  had  not  be- 
come "  ashamed"  of  Calvin's  absolute  "  decrees,"  were  the  high- 
toned  Presbyterians,  and  '•'•  perhaps^''  the  Congregationalists  of 
New  England.  I  defied  the  proof,  that  it  was  "  held"  by  the  other 
denominations.  He  does  not  give  the  proof,  but  says,  that  inasmuch 
I  said  "  they  were  ashamed  of, ^^  in  one  sentence,  and  "  they  hekW^ 
in  the  other,  I  have  contradicted  myself ! !  He  says  so.  But,  surely, 
there  is  no  contradiction.  The  Lutherans,  Episcopalians,  General 
Baptists,  Methodists,  Swedenborgians,  Moravians,  Unitarians, 
and  the  other  denominations  of  Protestants  that  I  am  acquainted 
with,  are  ^^  ashamed  of  it,''^  and  do  not  '^  hold  it."  I  said  that 
'*  none  of  the  Baptists  were  Calvinists.^^     This,  he  says,  "  shows 

MY    EXTREME    AND    IMPERTINENT    IGNORANCE  ;"     for,    he    adds,    the 

majority  in  Great  Britain  are  "  decidedly  CalvinisTic.  And,  there- 
fore, being  CalvinisTic,  they  are  Culvinists.' I  Now  the  Calvin- 
ists  of  Switzerland  tied  the  Baptists  back  to  back,  and  DROWN- 
ED THEM  FOR  HERESY— a  sufficient  proof  that  I  was  not 


441 

"  igrioranV^  when  I  said  that  none  of  the  Baptists  are  "  Calvin- 

I  have  too  much  respect  for  the  moral  sense  of  the  age,  not  to 
believe  and  hopey  that  the  gentleman  himself  would  be  "  ashamed" 
of  its  avowal.  Would  he  not  be  ashamed  to  go  into  a  Christian 
pulpit,  and  proclaim  that  the  crimes  and  villanies  of  the  day,  and 
the  drunkenness  and  debaucheries  of  the  night,  were  all  "  FORE- 
ORDAINED" by  God?  Would  he  not  be  "ashamed"  to  say, 
after  Calvin,  that  the  incest  of  Absolom  is  set  down  in  Scripture 
as  "GOD'S  OWN  WORK?"  '' Absolon  incesto  coitu  patris 
torum  polluens,  detestabile  scelus  perpetrate  Deus  tamen  hoc 
SUUM  OPUS  PRONUNciAT."  (1)  Would  he  not  be  "  ashamed" 
to  say,  with  the  father  of  his  religion,  that  "  God  directs  what- 
ever is  perpetrated  by  men,  or  even  by  the  Devil  himself  ?" 
"  £rgo  quidquid  agifent  homines  vel  Satan  ipse,  Deus  tamen 
clavum  teiief — literally,  "  God  holds  the  key.^^  (2) 

The  gentleman  says,  that  "■force'^  is  not  intended  by  the  com- 
mandment which  obliges  Presbyterians  "  to  remove  all  false  wor- 
ship, and  all  the  monuments  of  idolatry.''  He  ought  to  know 
that  the  uniform  practice  of  his  Church  explains  what  was  in- 
tended by  this  commandment.  In  Geneva  it  rneant  "  force," — 
in  France,  "  force,"  —  in  Scotland,  England,  and  Ireland, 
"  force," — in  the  Low  Countries,  "  force," — in  New  England, 
"  FORCE  ;" — and  if,  in  this  country,  it  means  "  moral  influence,"" 
the  fact  teaches  us  to  be  grateful  to  Heaven  for  having  given  us  a 
government  which  compels  the  Presbyterians  to  break  one  of 
God's  commandments,  and  desist  from  the  use  of  "force" 
in  removing  what  they,  in  the  plenitude  of  arrogance,  think 
proper  to  designate  as  ^^ false  worship."  The  article  was  framed, 
as  it  now  stands,  by  the  Creed-makers  of  Westminster,  when  the 
political  power,  legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary,  was  in  the 
hands  of  Presbyterians,  and  the  gentleman  must  be  extremely  ig- 
norant of  the  history  of  those  times,  if  he  supposes  that  it  was  not 
fram,ed  expressly  to  sanction  the  employment  of  "  force,"  in  esta- 
blishing Presbyterian  "  uniformity"  throughout  the  three  king- 
doms. It  was  the  very  rock  on  which  they  split.  For,  if  the  in- 
domitable intolerance  of  Calvinism  had  permitted  them  to  comply 
with  the  petitions  of  the  Independents,  to  grant  an  "  indulgence 
to  tender  consciences,"  their  power  would  not  have  been  so 
short-lived.  But  nothing  short  of  the  "REMOVAL"  of  all 
"  FALSE  WORSHIP"  would  satisfy  their  thirst  for  absolute  re- 
ligious domination.  This  we  have  seen  already  in  my  last  speech, 
and  it  shall  be  more  fully  shown  in  the  present. 

The  gentleman  wants  me  to  show  the  ""  intention"  oi  the  Edi- 
tor of  the  Catholic  Telegraph,  in  copying  the  article  from  a  foreign 
paper,  animadverting  on  the  affair  in  Boston.     It  is  enough  that  I 

(1)  Inst.  c.  18.  §  1.  (3)  Ibid. 

56 


442 

have  proved  him  and  his  colleagues  guilty  of  calumny,  when  they 
charged  the  authorship  of  that  article  on  the  Catholic  editor  him- 
self, and  on  this  assumption  of  their  own  calumny,  would  charge 
its  sentiments  on  the  whole  Catholic  body  of  the  United  States. 
Bishop  England  and  Bishop  Flaget  had  a  perfect  right  to  say 
what  they  have  said,  and  the  man  who  can  extract  a  had  meaning 
from  it,  must  be  one  who  measures  his  neighbour's  thoughts  by 
the  dark  standard  of  his  own  bosom. 

He  says  he  has  answered  the  doctrine  of  the  "  decrees"  of  Cal- 
vinism so  often,  that  he  would  be  ^^  ashamed  to  go  over  it  again** 
— ^^  it  would  fatigue  his  hearers  and  future  readers.^*  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  so  pleasant  a  doctrine,  that  they  would  never  get 
tired  of  it.  A  doctrine  that  tells  them  that  all  the  crimes  they 
ever  have  committed,  or  will  commit,  were  "  FORE-ORDAINED" 
by  God,  cannot  be  repeated  too  often.  The  passions  will  exult 
in  it.  But  if  the  gentleman  would  only  once  attempt  to  answer 
my  arguments,  showing  its  dangerous  bearings  on  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty,  his  doing  so  would  constitute  a  variety  in  his  re- 
ply, precious  as  a  spice  of  life.  He  says,  that  in  this  I  attack  the 
principle  of  the  "  Protestant  Reformation  era."  But  why  is 
not  he  able  to  defend  it,  since  the  other  Protestants  generally 
have  become  '*  ashamed  of  its  avowal." 

He  says,  the  "DAY  OF  OUR  DOOM  IS  AT  HAND." 
This  is  strong ;  and  considering  that  the  gentleman  is  in  the  secrets 
of  the  anti-Catholic  crusaders,  this  is  significant  language.  The 
"  day  of  our  doom"  may  be  destined,  in  the  '*  decrees"  of  Cal- 
vin, to  come  in  the  "  night,''*  as  was  the  case  with  the  Convent  at 
Boston.  As  to  *' priestcraft,"  the  odium,  of  the  term  may  be- 
long to  us — the  GAIN  belongs  to  the  parsons.  The  *'  craft**  is 
theirs.  The  American  Catholics  are  much  obliged  to  the  gentle- 
man for  calling  them  "  enlightened.**  I  showed,  in  my  last 
speech,  that  what  the  gentleman  calls  a  "  change"  in  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  is  only  an  *'  omission,"  and  that  an  omission  is  no 
condemnation,  no  contradiction.  Otherwise,  the  gospels  of  the 
four  Evangelists  would  be  in  contradiction  with  each  other.  The 
gentleman,  unable  to  meet  my  arguments,  asks  a  question: — 
"  But,**  says  he,  "  can  the  American  people  be  gulled  with  a 
change  in  a  few  words,  when  the  thing  remains  the  same?**  To 
this,  I  reply,  I  hope  not.  The  American  people  are  not  so  easily 
''  gulled.**  The  fate  of  the  '* Sunday  Mail  petitions,"  at  Wash- 
ington,— and  of  the  Sunday  School  Union  bill,  at  Harrisburg,  a  few 
years  ago,  should  have  taught  Presbyterians  that  the  American 
people  are  not  to  be  '*  gulled  by  the  change  of  a  few  words 
when  the  the  thing  remains  the  same." 

The  gentleman  is  very  much  afflicted  for  the  disappointment 
which  Catholics  will  feel  on  reading  my  part  of  this  discussion. 
I  would  advise  him  lo  husband  his  sympathies — he  will  have  oc- 
casion for  them  elsewhere.    He  will  have  to  carry  on  the  '•  contro- 


443 

versy  by  himself y^^  for  many  a  day,  before  he  will  have  repaired 
its  effects,  even  to  his  own  satisfaction,  much  less  to  that  of  his 
orthodox  brethren. 

I  promised,  in  my  last  speech,  to  loan  him  the  book,  printed 
under  Doctor  Ely's  direction,  which  contains  all  my  former  quota- 
tions from  the  proceedings  of  the  Sunday  School  Union.  I  had 
told  all  about  it  before.  When  I  had  done  this,  I  said  I  had  given 
the  "  reference."  He  says,  in  his  usual  polite  and  veracious 
style,  that  this  is  "  utterly  false."  Let  the  public  judge.  But 
least  he  should  have  any  pretext  for  evading  it,  I  tell  him  that  the 
Preface  to  the  Catalogue  of  Sunday  School  Books,  for  the  year 
1826,  contains  the  avowal  of  "dictation  to  the  souls  OF 
THOUSANDS  of  immortal  beings."  Let  the  gentleman  meet  it. 
As  to  Mr.  Ansley,  not  having  an  opportunity  to  defend  himself 
the  gentleman's  attack  on  his  private  character  is  as  cruel  and  heart- 
less a  proceeding  as  it  is  possible  to  imagine.  The  gentleman  returns 
to  it,  as  to  a  labour  of  love.  Insinuation  is  the  safest  channel  for 
slander,  and  the  gentleman  ought  to  have  left  it  to  those  base 
spirits  that  take  delight  in  blackening  character,  without  risking 
the  responsibility  of  being  accusers.  Until  he  think  proper  to 
speak  out,  I  can  only  say,  and  I  say  it  with  the  most  undisguised 
contempt  for  the  insinuation,  that  "  I  recognise  in  it  the  meanness 
that  would  insinuate,  without  the  courage  to  assert,"  and  that  so  far 
as  it  is  supposed  to  relate  to  myself,  it  is  founded  on  FALSE- 
HOOD, and  must  reflect  its  infamy  back  on  its  origin.  I  hope 
the  gentleman  will  speak  out  the  next  time. 

He  says,  I  "  falsified  Calvin  with  my  eyes  open."  I  answer, 
the  statement  is  not  to  be  depended  on.  I  quoted  Calvin's  own 
words,  and  the  audience  are  to  judge  whether  they  *'  make  God 
the  author  of  sin."  If  they  do  not,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what 
they  mean.  But  let  the  audience  and  the  public  judge.  The 
gentleman  lays  down  a  canon  of  criticism  on  the  subject  of  "  quo- 
tations" which  is  not  orthodox.  He  says,  that  when  "  I  pass  his 
quotations  by  in  silence,  it  is  admitting  the  truth  of  the  proof 
and  the  fairness  of  the  method  of  citation.''''  I  caution  the  audience 
against  any  such  absurd  inference.  I  may  pass  by  his  "  quota- 
tions in  silence" — 1st.  Because,  if,  in  every  case,  I  were  to  stop 
to  correct  the  want  of  *'  truth,''''  or  unfairness  in  the  "  method  of 
citation,"  I  should  lose  the  whole  time,  and  fill  up  the  space,  that 
are  sacred  to  something  more  important  than  the  exposure  of  faith- 
less citation.  2d.  The  falsity  of  the  quotation,  whether  in  sub- 
stance or  method,  may  be  unimportant.  3d.  I  may  discover,  that 
faithless  though  it  be,  yet  it  does  not  prove  the  point  for  which 
he  adduced  it.  Here  are  three  sufficient  reasons  why  I  should 
pass  many  of  his  "  quotations  by  in  silence."  I  have  exposed  a 
few  as  a  sample,  and  I  believe  that  the  usual  rule  is  to  place  but 
little  reliance  on  an  author  who  has  corrupted,  even  in  a  single 
instance,  the  testimony  of  those  whom  he  brings  forward  as 


444 

vouchers.  The  gentleman's  inference  would  require  me  to  prove 
that  he  never  quotes  without  perverting.  This  I  did  not  say. 
But  I  do  say,  that  in  no  single  instance  have  I  examined  his  quo- 
tations, without  being  painfully  convinced  that  they  were  pervert- 
ed, either  in  altering  the  text,  or  in  perverting  the  author's  mean- 
ing, and  sometimes  in  both. 

In  reference  to  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  gen- 
tleman, after  charging  a  great  many  frauds  on  the  translation,  not 
one  of  which  he  ventures  to  prove  by  citation,  closes  with  these 
words,  "  hut  I  here  challenge  Mr,  Hughes  to  meet  me  before  any 
7iumber  of  Latin  scholars,  and  J  will  convict  this  shamefid  edi- 
tion of  twenty  DELIBERATE  and  glaring  FRAUDS  which 
have  been  EVIDENTLY  committed  with  DESIGN."  I  accept 
the  challenge,  and  refer  it  to  the  tribunal  for  examining  the  gen- 
tleman's calumnies.  I  shall  enter  into  obligations  to  pay,  by  my 
securities,  one  hundred  dollars  for  every  instance  in  which  he  will 
have  succeeded  to  prove  his  proposition;  provided,  he  will  oblige 
himself  to  forfeit  a  similar  sum  for  every  instance  in  which  he  will 
have  failed  to  prove  it.  Let  him  name  the  day  when  he  is  willing 
and  ready  to  enter  into  these  obligations.  If  he  does  not,  the 
public  will  see  that  he  has  no  confidence  in  the  truth  of  his  propo- 
sition.    I  pronounce  it  utterly  untrue. 

The  gentleman  assumes,  in  his  attempt  to  vindicate  his  sup- 
pression of  a  part  of  the  twenty-seventh  Canon  of  the  Third  La- 
teran,  that  I  admit  the  Church  had  a  right  to  punish  the  Albigenses 
*'  for  their  crimes."  I  admitted  no  such  thing:  it  is  his  own  per- 
version of  7ny  language.  It  is  false  in  history,  that  the  Church 
punished  them,  for  their  crimes.  They  were  punished  by  their 
governments  for  their  outrages  on  society.  The  Church  excom- 
municated them ;  and  their  crimes  drew  on  them  their  chastise- 
ment and  suppression.  Had  not  the  states  which  they  disturbed 
a  right  to  reduce  them  ?  Had  not  France  its  king,  and  Germany  its 
emperor,  and  every  state  in  Europe  its  civil  government.  Suppos- 
ing that  CATHOLICS  had  leagued  together  for  the  destruction  of 
social  order,  and  the  commission  of  crime,  as  the  Albigenses  did; 
supposing  they  had  committed,  on  "  churches  and  monasteries, 
virgins  and  widows,  all  sexes  and  ages,"  those  outrages  which 
the  gentleman,  after  Faber,  thought  it  prudent  to  suppress  and 
conceal,  would  not  the  States  have  a  right  to  reduce  them  to  order, 
or  exterminate  them,  and  would  not  the  authorities  of  the  Church 
have  a  right  to  encourage  them  to  do  so?  But  what  would  have 
been  lawful  on  account  of  their  crimes,  if  they  had  been  Catholics, 
becomes  quite  otherwise  from  the  moment  that  their  crimes  were 
sanctified  by  the  merits  of  their  heresy.  Because  they  were 
Albigenses,  the  gentleman  seems  to  infer  that  it  was  persecution 
to  arrest  them  in  their  career  of  destruction,  until  they  had  deso- 
lated the  whole  land  "  after  the  manner  of  pagans,"  as  they  were 
doing.     They  were  the  public  enemies  of  society  by  their  crimes 


445 

—for  tliis  the  gentleman  admits  they  oiig-lit  to  be  punished.  But 
they  were  the  enemies  of  the  Catholic  religion,  and  had  assailed,  by 
violence,  its  churches,  monasteries,  &c.,  and  for  this  they  ought  to 
have  been  protected,  and  the  Pope,  at  least,  ought  not  to  have  en- 
couraged any  measures  against  them ! !  But,  he  says,  it  was  at 
least  "  discipline,"  of  the  Church.  No,  sir,  it  was  not  even  dis- 
cipline. It  was  a  special  direction  for  a  special  case.  The  Synod 
of  York  has  directed  an  anti-popery  sermon  to  be  preached  every 
year ;  and  this  order,  or  direction,  is  neither  doctrine  nor  disci- 
pline. The  direction  given  at  the  Council  of  Lateran,  was,  in  its 
principle,  like  that  given  at  the  Synod  of  York.  It  is  neither 
doctrine,  nor  discipline.  If  the  Catholics  had  been  acquainted 
with  the  Presbyterian  second  commandment,  it  would  not  have 
been  necessary  to  wait  for  the  public  crimes  of  the  Albigenses. 
Their  "  FALSE  WORSHIP"  alone  would  have  given  a  sufficient 
plea  to  obey  God,  and  "  REMOVE  THEM."  This  may  sug- 
gest the  difference  between  doctrine  and  no  doctrine. 

He  says  that  I  am  "bound  in  virtue  of  holy  obedience,  to 
read  the  bull  In  Coena  Domini,  during  Lent,  every  year." 
Here,  again,  he  deceives  his  readers  by  the  assertion.  His 
statement  is  positively  false.  I  proved,  under  the  former  head, 
that  that  bull  was  never  admitted  in  many  Catholic  coun- 
tries, and  that  by  a  rescript  of  the  Pope  himself,  it  was  sup- 
pressed throughout  the  whole  world,  except  in  Rome  itself.  Proof 
and  reasoning  are  lost  on  such  an  opponent,  but  not,  I  trust, 
on  the  meeting  and  the  public.  Finally,  he  says,  "/Ae  Church 
has  shed  blood  enough  to  float  a  man  of  war^  This  is  quite  a 
moderate ^^gi«re.  It  used  to  be  "oceans"  of  blood.  I  maintain, 
that  not  so  much  as  one  drop  of  human  blood  was  ever  shed  by 
virtue  of  any  tenet  of  faith  or  morals  in  the  Catholic  religion ; 
and  the  gentleman,  however  bold  in  his  assertions,  has  been  sig- 
nally defeated  in  his  attempts  to  prove  the  contrary.  The  Cath- 
olics have  shed  blood,  like  the  professors  of  other  creeds,  but  never, 
like  the  Presbyterians,  by  virtue  of  one  of  God's  commandments. 
Whenever  the  gentleman  ventured  on  facts  to  prove  his  assertion, 
he  was  found  minus  habens.  Now  he  has  recourse  to  opinions. 
He  thinks  that  all  the  blood  shed  in  the  crusades,  is  chargeable  to 
the  Church ;  the  Saracens,  like  the  Albigenses,  were  innocent 
lambs.  Wiser  and  mo7'e  learned  Protestants,  have  pronounced 
that  the  Crusades  were  just  wars.  If  so,  the  gentleman's  "  man 
of  war,"  will  be  agromid. 

Next  the  Inquisition.  He  thinks,  that  the  Church  is  account- 
able for  the  blood  shed  by  the  Inquisition.  Now  every  man  that 
knows  the  history  of  the  countries  in  which  it  existed,  knows, 
that  so  far  as  the  shedding  of  blood  was  a  part  of  the  Inquisition, 
it  was  ENTIRELY,  AND  AVOWEDLY,  2.  political  and  not  an 
ecclesiastical  tribunal.  So  that  this  must  be  subtracted  from  the 
element  on  which  the  gentleman  would  float  his  "  man  of  war." 


446 

Next  the  Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomeii\  He  thinks,  that  the 
Church  is  accountable  Tor  this.  I  have  proved  the  contrary,  in 
the  former  question.  The  wars  in  Ireland  made  the  Catholics 
bleed,  and  not  the  protestants,  except  in  the  wicked  retaliation  of 
despair.  Let  the  gentleman  read  the  Vindiciae  Hibernicae  of  Mr. 
Carey,  and  he  will  make  a  prohtable  addition  to  his  stock  of  know- 
ledge. As  to  the  rest,  the  gentleman  might  as  well  hold  the 
Church  responsible  for  the  blood  that  was  shed  at  the  battle  of 
Waterloo. 

Charge,  then,  all  the  blood  which  the  gentleman  has  collected 
with  so  much  assertion,  and  so  little  sense  or  authority,  from  the 
CIVIL  or  FOREIGN  WARS,  in  which  Catholics  throughout  the 
ivorld  may  have  been  engaged,  each  portion  to  its  proper  account, 
where  history  places  it,  and  the  *'  man  of  war,"  which  he  thought 
to  set  "afloat,"  will  be  found  "high  and  dry."  He  has  fallen 
into  thai  fallacy  of  logic,  which  is  sometimes  termed  "won  causa 
pro  causa,*'  assigning  effects  to  one  cause,  which  belong  to  an- 
other. But  as  he  is  bold  in  assertion,  and  fallacious  in  logic,  so 
is  he  fervent  in  declamation.  He  looks  at  the  picture  drawn  from 
imaginatio7i,  and  addressed  to  imagination  /  and  in  order  to  show 
what  patriots  he  and  Doctor  Brownlee  are,  he  seems  to  say,  "  Ohy 
my  countrymen,  the  Catholic  Church  is  guilty  of  all  the  blood 
that  ever  was  shed.  Do  not,  I  beseech  you,  after  all  the  trouble 
we  have  had  to  get  money  from  you,  for  tracts,  and  Bibles,  and 
missionaries,  and  education  societies,  do  not,  I  pray  you,  sell 
yourselves  to  the  Pope.  Then  our  occupation  would  be  gone. 
Look  at  this  picture  of  a  *  man  of  war.' " 

Tlie  gentleman  has  said,  with  his  usual  regard  for  truth,  that 
"  Mr.  Hughes  thinks  that  these  massacres  may  be  justified,  be- 
cause, as  he  says,  the  victims  of  them  were  not  innocent  but 
wicked  men,  and  the  enemies  of  Society.**  Just  for  curiosity,  I 
shall  number  the  untruths  contained  in  this  short  sentence.  Mr. 
Hughes  never  thought  or  said,  that  men  might  be  *^  massacred,** 
for  being  ^^  wicked  men,**  (first  untruth.)  Mr.  Hughes  never 
thought  or  said  that  ''these  massacres"  might  be  "justified,"  at 
all,  (second  untruth.)  Mr.  Hughes  never  thought  or  said,  that 
any  massacre  might  be  "justified,"  on  any  plea,  (third  untruth.) 
Now  if  I  have,  I  bind  myself  to  apologize  publicly  for  the  laU' 
guage  I  have  used.  If  I  have  not,  the  gentleman  owes  a  triple 
apology ;  one  to  my  character,  another  to  truth,  and  the  third  to 
that  commandment  of  God,  which  says,  ''thou  shalt  not  bear 
false  witness  against  thy  neighbour,**  and  which  seems  to  be  a 
dead  letter,  if  at  all,  in  the  Presbyterian  Catechism. 

He  says  again,  that  I  "oivn  the  fact  of  a  theocracy  in  that  day 
of  Rome*  s  supreme  dominion  over  men*s  souls  and  bodies.**  Now 
there  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  this  assertion.  I  pointed  to  the 
real  Calvinistic  "theocracy"  of  the  early  "puritans"  in  New 
England,  as  presenting  a  "diminutive  analogy**  of  the  social  con- 


447 

dition  of  Europe,  at  the  period  of  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council. 
The  inference  that,  therefore,  I  own  a  theocracy  in  tlie  Catholic 
religion,  is  both  illogical  in  reasoning,  and  false  in  assertion.  From 
thisy*«/«e  assertion,  the  gentleman  draws  other  inferences  intended 
to  prove  I  care  not  what;  but  proving  in  effect,  that  Mr.  Hughes 
is,  like  his  Churchy  as  wicked  as  barefaced  calumny  can  make 
him.  I  am  surprised  that  the  gentleman  has  not  more  pity  on  his 
own  reputation  ;  he  exposes  himself  palpably  and  unmercifully. 
After  having  quoted  the  passage  from  my  letters,  showing  that  the 
Catholic  States  of  Europe  had  a  right  «  TO  TAKE  MEASURES 
FOR  THE  COMMON  WELFARE,"  to  suppress  sedition,  and 
maintain  order  and  subordination  in  society,  he  adds,  "  THUS  WE 
SEE  HOW  HE  (Mr.  Hughes,)  DENIES  ALL  CONSTITU- 
TIONAL, ORIGINAL,  IMPRESCRIPTIBLE  RIGHTS,"  (not 
true,)  AND  GIVES  TO  THE  POWERS  THAT  BE,  TO  AN 
AUTOCRAT,  OR  A  MAJORITY,  THE  RIGHT  TO  STOP 
THE  CIRCULATION  OF  THE  BIBLE,"  (not  exactly  true,) 
*^or  to  destroy  the  minority,  if  their  own  interest  depends  on  it  J** 
(Utterly  and  entirely  false.)  All  that  I  said  was,  that  society  ha» 
a  right  to  suppress  heretics,  or  no  heretics,  who  undertake  to  over- 
throw the  government.  The  gentleman  had  said,  that  this  would 
have  been  accomplished  in  Russia,  if  the  OPERATIONS  OF 
THE  BIBLE  SOCIETY  had  not  been  arrested;  and  I  observ- 
ed in  reply,  that  the  Emperor  did  what  any  mayi  would  do  in  his 
circumstances ;  he  put  down  the  Bible  Society,  and  we  have  Mr. 
Breckinridge's  authority  for  stating,  that  if  he  had  not  done  so,  he 
would  have  "TO  LOSE  HIS  CROWN."  (1) 

But  it  is  not,  only  in  misrepresentations  of  my  statements,  and 
false  inductions,  but  in  direct  and  positive  matters  of  fact,  that 
the  gentleman  does  injury  to  truth.  For  instance,  he  says  the 
Confession  of  Faith  was  amended  "BEFORE  THE  AMERI- 
CAN REVOLUTION."  Now  it  was  amended  so  far  as  print- 
ing is  concerned,  in  the  first  General  Assembly,  in  1789,  just 
thirteen  years  after  the  Declaration  of  Independence ! !  How  then 
could  it  have  been  "6e/bre,"  as  the  gentleman  has  said  with  em- 
phasis.    It  was  not  even  before  the  Constitution. 

The  question  returns  then,  how  can  Presbyterians  obey  God# 
who  commands  them  to  "  REMOVE  ALL  FALSE  WORSHIP ;" 
and  yet  obey  the  Constitutions,  which  enjoin  on  them  to  disobey 
God?  This  is  the  point  which  I  cannot  get  the  gentleman  to 
meet,  or  clear  up.  He  says  that  he  has  answered  this  question 
before,  by  showing  that  WE  (Presbyterians,)  mean  in  the  CON- 
FESSION, NO  FORCE  ;  but  truth,  moral  influence,  argument, 
the  press,  the  Bible,  fyc.  SfC.  This  is  sophistry  which  can  de- 
ceive but  few.  For,  the  meaning  of  the  "  Confession,"  was  de- 
termined by  those  who  drew  it  up,  nearly  two  hundred  years  ago. 

(1)  bee  Letters,  viii.  ix. 


448 

The  object  of  the  doctrine  was  to  impose  the  solemn  leagne  and' 
covenant  on  all  men,  and  establish  ^'' uniformity'^  of  religion 
throughout  the  three  kingdoms.  How  ^  By  PENAL  LAWS-,  sanc- 
tioning the  use  of  every  kind  of  punishment,  from,  the  stocks  to 
the  s;cdloivs  and  the  block.  Its  meaning  has  been  determined  by 
actsV  Parliament,  by  ejecting  the  EPISCOPAL  CLERGY  from- 
their  livings,  by  "REMOVING,"  VIOLENTLY,  every  monu-^ 
ment  of  Catholic  piety  from  the  Episcopal  Churches.  Was  this^ 
*'  moral  influence. ^'^  The  gentleman  need  not  tell  us  what  "  he*^ 
means  in  the  Confession.  Its  meaning  was  written  in  the  blood 
of  the  Catholics,  Episcopalians,  Baptists,  Arminians,  Quakers,  &c.,. 
before,  long  before,  he  was  born.  Its  meaning  is  a  settled  pointy 
a  "ruled  case;"  and  I  am  astonished  that  the  gentleman  should 
have  exposed  his  knowledge  of  history,  so  far  as  to  talk  of  "  mo- 
ral influence,"  in  connexion  with  the  propagation  of  Calvinism^ 
How  was  it  propagated?  I  say  BY  FORCE,  and  I  challenge 
contradiction.  It  was  a  tyrant  from  its  cradle,  and  before  it  was 
ten  years  of  age,  it  had  abolished  the  "  mass,"  and  drowned  the 
Baptists  in  the  same  canton.  How  did  it  propagate  itself,  in 
Geneva?  BY  FORCE.  In  France?  BY  FORCE.  Ri  Scot- 
land? BY  FORCE.  In  Holland?  BY  FORCE.  In  England? 
BY  FORCE.  In  Ireland?  BY  FORCE.  How  did  it  preach 
itself  into  political  power  in  those  countries  ?  It  began  by  LI- 
BELS, and  ended  by  PITCHED  BATTLES.  The  exordium 
of  its  sermon  was  sedition;  —  the  peroration,  fixed  bayonets. 
Will  the  gentleman  deny  this  ?  He  need  not ;  all  this  i&  piiblie, 
notorious,  palpable  matter  of  history.  But  after  it  had  succeeded  in- 
establishing  itself  BY  FORCE,  did  it  then  employ,  only  "moral 
influence  ?"  In  answer  to  this  question,  I  refer  the  reader  to  my 
last  speech,  and  he  will  see  that  it  employed  the  influence  of  the 
block  and  the  gibbet,  far  the  purpose  of  "REMOVING  ALL 
FALSE  WORSHIP."  The  American  Constitution  abridged  the 
practical  part  of  the  creed,  on  this  subject.  But  since  then,  (like 
Samson  in  the  recovery  of  his  strength,)  its  hair  has  grown  out, 
its  locks  have  become  thick  and  bushy,  and,  impatient  of  the  "  PHI- 
LISTINES" by  whom  it  is  surrounded,  it  begins  to  FEEL  that 
it  is  NOW  strong  enough  to  "  carry  away  the  pillars'^  of  the 
Constitution; — and  judging  by  the  fiery  zeal  of  the  gentleman  and 
his  colleagues,  it  is  almost  blind  enough  to  make  the  attempt. 
("  The  Presbyterians  alone,'"  says  Dr.  Ely,  "  could  bring  a  half 
a  million  of  voters  into  the  field.'*') 

But  so  long  as  the  Constitution  lasts,  the  Presbyterian  doctrine 
cannot  have  FAIR  PLAY.  The  magistrates  cannot,  convenient- 
ly,  be  "ITS  NURSING  FATHERS."  But  take  it  where  they 
were  faithful  to  the  nursling;"  let  us  see  it  in  the  low  countries, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  one  of  its  own  ministers,  for  I  like 
to  use  lis  friends  as  witnesses  against  it. 

We  have  seen  the  fruits  of  the  doctrine  about  the  "  REMOVING 


449 

OF  ALL  FALSE  WORSHIP,"  as  they  ripened  in  Geneva,  Scot- 
land, and  New  England.  Let  us  see  whether  they  were  less  bitter 
in  the  Low  Countries.  I  shall  quote  from  the  "  History  of  the 
Reformation,  in  and  about  the  Low  Countries^  by  the  Rev.  Gerard 
Brandf^ — himself  a  Presbyterian  minister,  but  not  a  "  high-toned 
Calvinist."  In  describing  the  "  moral  influence,"  by  which  Cal- 
vinism established  itself  at  Antwerp  in  1566,  his  narrative  reminds 
one  of  the  "  removing'''' -process  at  Boston — the  fulfilling  of  the 
second  commandment. 

"  Strada  adds,  that  they  (the  Calvinists)  laid  hands  on  the  sacra- 
mental bread,  or  mass-wafers,  trampling  them  under  their  feet. 
The  consecrated  chalices  they  filled  with  the  wine  they  found  in 
the  churches,  and  drank  to  one  another's  health.  They  smeared 
their  shoes  with  the  holy  oil,  defiled  the  church  garments  with 
ordure,  and,  daubing  the  books  with  butter^  threw  them  into  the 
fire:  some  of  the  images  and  pictures  were  kicked  up  and  down; 
others  they  thrust  through  with  swords,  or  chopped  off  their 
heads  with  axes ;  upon  others  they  put  on  armour,  and  then  tilted 
against  them  with  spears,  javelins,  &c.  out  of  wantonness,  till  the 
images  fell  down,  and  then  mocked  and  jeared  them."(l)  Was 
not  this  Calvinistic  ''  moral  influence?" 

It  may  be  well  to  inform  the  audience  that  what  is  called  the 
^^  Reformed  Religion^^  in  these  extracts  is  the  pure  Calvinistic 
doctrine — held  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States. 
It  was  introduced  at  Dort,  in  1572,  in  the  following  truly  evan- 
gelical manner,  converting  the  Catholics  by  the  pure  "  moral  influ- 
ence" of  persuasion. 

"  The  first  sermon  preached  by  the  Reformed  was  under  a 
lime-tree  in  the  Klevenniers  Doel,  where  the  shooting-house  now 
stands ;  but  that  did  not  last  long,  nor  would  they  be  so  contented. 
In  a  little  time,  the  images  were  thrown  out  of  the  churches,  the 
altars  broken  down,  and  the  Reformed  Religion  was  publicly 
exercised.  But,  in  a  certain  Journal  written  at  that  time,  we 
find  that  the  images  in  the  monastery  of  the  Austin  Fryers  were 
broken  down  on  the  26th  of  July,  and  that  on  the  next  day  the 
first  sermon  was  preached  there.  The  Baguines  were  forced  to 
Jly,  for  the  troopers  brought  their  horses  into  their  nunneries. "(2) 

Again,  at  Utrecht,  in  1580,  about  fourteen  years  after  Calvinism 
had  established  itself  by  the  persuasive  '*  moral  influence"  of  the 
musket,  the  magistrates  began  to  ^^ nurse^^  it: — 

"  It  fared  yet  worse  with  the  papists  at  Utrect;  for,  upon  the 
18th  of  June,  there  was  published  an  order  in  that  city  (of  which 
the  occasion  is  not  mentioned)  forbidding,  in  the  name  of  the 
stadtholder  and  magistrates,  the  exercise  of  the  Romish  religion 
to  all  priests,  or  ordained  persons,  and  their  adherents,  of  that 
communion,  within  the  said  city  or  liberties  thereof,  i/pon  for- 

(1)  Vol.  i.  p.  193.  (2)  Idem,  p.  297. 

57 


450 

feiture  of  their  benefices  and  offices,  if  they  had  any,  or  the  sum 
of  ten  gilders  ;  and  this  order  was  to  be  in  force  till  the  stadtholder 
and  states  should  otherwise  direct."(lj 

From  these  extracts  the  gentleman  will  learn  how  Presbyterians, 
"  according  to  each  one's  place  and  calling,"  are  bound  to 
"  remove  all  feds  e  worship,  and  all  the  monuments  of  idolatry  J' "* 
We  have  seen  that  "  force"  has  always  and  every  where  been 
employed  for  that  purpose.  In  1581  the  following  ordinance  was 
published  in  Amsterdam,  by  the  piime  "  nursing  father." 

"  On  the  say  day  there  likewise  appeared  a  placard,  in  the 
name  of  the  prince  of  Orange,  as  to  whom  the  supreme  adminis- 
tration of  affairs  had  been  yielded  up ;  in  which,  not  only  the 
printing  and  selling  all  manner  of  scandalous,  abuseful,  and  sedi- 
tious books  and  pamphlets,  new  ballads  and  songs,  without  the 
leave  of  the  magistracy,  and  name  of  the  publisher,  were  pro- 
hibited, but  also,  the  exercise  of  the  Jiomish  religion,  and  the 
holding  either  public  or  private  conventicles,  on  the  peiialty  of  a 
hundred  gilders ;  7iev ertheless,  says  the  same  placard,  it  is  not 
our  intention  to  impose  any  burthen,  or  make  inquisition  into 
any  man^s  co7iscience.  The  wearing  ecclesiastical  habits,  and 
keeping  schools,  ivithout  previous  examination  and  permission, 
were  likewise  forbidden  to  all  papist s.^\2) 

The  ministers  of  Calvinism,  after  having  appropriated  to  their 
own  use  the  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  secular  property  of  the 
Catholics,  by  the  violences  and  tyranny  here  mentioned,  came  to  a 
decision,  in  1588,  that  not  only  the  Catholic  faith  should  be 
excluded,  but  that  the  exercise  of  all  other  religions,  but  their 
own,  should  be  prohibited. (3)  Burgomaster  Hoost,  in  endea- 
vouring to  instil  some  feelings  of  humanity  into  the  persecuting 
soul  of  this  desperate  religion,  uses  an  argument  which  I  submit 
to  the  gentleman's  consideration. 

"  Particularly,"  says  he,  "  it  is  very  strange  that  those  who  so 
strenuously  maintain  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  should  thus  in- 
sist on  PERSECUTION,  OR  FORCING  OF  CONSCIENCES ; 
for,  if  their  doctrine  be  true,  no  man  can  avoid  that  to  which  he 
is  ordained." (4) 

To  show  that  their  doctrine  binds  them,  in  conscience,  to  hin- 
der any  other  worship  but  their  own,  the  following  testimony 
from  their  writings  will  be  sufficient. 

"  Since"  experience  has  shown  how  prejudicial  it  has  been  to 
the  church  of  God,  to  tolerate  the  Anabaptists,  in  the  free  exer- 
cise of  their  schismatical  opinions,  after  the  public  dispute  with 
them,  just  as  if  there  was  no  difference  between  the  pure  doctrine 
of  the  [true  church  and  their  heterodox  notions;  the  ministers, 
therefore,  of  God's  word  belonging  to  this  province,  intreat  the 

(1)  Page  375.  (2)  Brandt,  vol.  i.  p.  383. 

(3)  Idem,  vol.  i.  p.  424.  (4)  Page  470. 


451 

deputies  of  the  states  to  provide  some  remedy  for  this  evily  so  as- 
it  may  be  most  for  the  benefit  of  God's  church  and  the  discharge 
of  their  consciences. ^\l) 

The  following  testimony  shows  plainly  the  nature  of  the  doc- 
trine touching  the  duty  of  the  civil  magistrates  to  be  "  nursing 
fathers'"  to  the  church. 

"But  God  works  by  instruments  or  such  officers  as  he  has  set 
over  the  people.  Those  officers  are  your  lordships,  whom  God 
has  appointed  as  supreme  moderators  and  governors  under  him, 
in  all  cases  relating  to  his  church.  The  right  which  belonged  to 
the  Christian  magistrate  in  these  matters,  who  was  to  take  care  that 
the  word  of  God  were  duly  preached,  and  all  scandal  or  offence 
removed,  was  taken  away  from  him  by  the  Pope;  hut  restored  in 
some  places  by  the  Reformation  J' \2) 

Having  removed  the  Catholic,  and  prevented  the  Baptist  reli- 
gion, BY  FORCE,  one  would  have  expected  that  these  Calvinists 
would  tolerate  each  other.  But  no.  Some  of  them  becoming 
"  ashamed"  of  Calvin's  doctrine  about  absolute  "  PREDESTI- 
NATION," were  PERSECUTED,  for  exercising  their  own 
judgment  and  the  rights  of  conscience  in  reference  to  that  tenet, 
with  a  cruelty  and  obstinacy  without  a  parallel.  These  were 
called  ARMINIANS  or  REMONSTRANTS,  and  their  perse- 
cutors GOMARISTS  or  CONTRA-REMONSTRANTS.  From 
the  moment  that  these  Arminians  ventured  to  think  for  themselves, 
the  cunning  treachery  and  intolerance  of  pure,  unadulterated  Calvin- 
ism, such  as  the  gentleman  professes,  marked  them  out  for  vengeance 
and  destruction.  How  did  they  begin?  By  their  usual  weapon, 
slander.  They  covered  them  with  calumny,  as  has  been  done  in 
Boston,  and  then  employed  the  mob  and  the  magistrate,  alternate- 
ly, to  hunt  them  down. 

"  The  Remonstrants  were  (as  they  themselves  complained) 
through  the  many  SLANDERS  raised  against  them  in  those 
times,  rendered  so  odious  to  the  common  people,  and  to  the  vilest 
of  the  mob  especially,  that  they  could  hardly  walk  the  streets 
without  being  called  Arminians,  and  other  reproachful  names,  and 
pointed  at  as  they  passed^  Many  cried  out  aloud  that  they  held  a 
correspondence  with  the  Spaniards  and  Jesuits  ;  that  they  received 
bribes  and  pensions  from  them,  and  would  have  betrayed  their 
country  to  them,  if  they  had  not  been  hindered.  Many  suffered 
themselves  to  be  persuaded,  or  else  made  themselves  believe  (for 
when  once  hatred  has  got  possession  of  a  man's  heart,  he  deceives 
himself  as  easily  as  he  does  others)  that  their  doctrines  were  mere 
blasphemy;  that  God,  according  to  tliem,  had  decreed  one  man 
(or  even  one  child)  from  the  womb  of  his  mother,  to  eternal 
damnation,  and  another  to  salvation." (3) 

In  every  age  of  Calvinism,  a  pretended  zeal  for  their  country, 

(1)  Page  474.  (2)  Vol.  ii.  p.  .58.  (3)  Idem,  p.  427. 


452 

and  against  popery,  has  been  and  is  the  ^^premonitory  symptom'''' 
of  persecution.  The  same  cry  was  raised  every  where,  when 
they  wished  a  pretext  to  practice  their  intolerant  second  com- 
mandment. Accordingly,  when  in  1618  the  Remonstrants  wished 
to  heal  the  division,  the  Calvinists,  says  Brandt, 

"  In  order  to  put  this  separation  actually  in  practice,  they  have^ 
by  their  preaching  and  discourses,  instilled  very  ill  opinions  of 
the  said  Remonstrants  into  the  common  people,  accusing  them  of 
promoting  novelties,  describing  them  by  heretical  nick-names,  and 
reporting  that  they  endeavoured  to  INTRODUCE  POPERY, 
and  to  betray  the  country  to  Spain.^\l)     Again,  still — 

'*  During  the  course  of  these  affairs  and  disputes,  several  people 
dispersed  libels  and  scandalous  papers,  daily,  but  without  any 
name  to  them,  with  design  to  render  their  adversaries  odious. 
But  it  will  not  be  unuseful  to  set  before  our  reader  what  the 
Heer  Grotius  thought  of  this  kind  of  proceeding  and  its  conse- 
quences. '  If  there  be  any  thing,'  says  he,  '  unbecoming  a  Chris- 
tian, it  is  the  violating  any  man's  good  name  by  pasquils  and 
libels.  This,  by  the  Roman  or  civil  law,  was  forbidden,  on  pain  of 
death,  and  justly  so,  since  every  man,  by  such  means,  has  it  in 
his  power  to  blacken  his  neighbour,  without  his  being  able  to 
obtain  a  legal  remedy ;  because  his  adversary  is  concealed,  who 
also  lies  the  more  boldly,  as  knowing  he  cannot  be  obliged  to 
prove  his  assertions.  How  much  some  of  the  contra-Remonstrant 
clergy,  and  others  of  their  persuasion,  have  found  their  account 
in  this  way  of  proceeding,  their  works  will  show :  in  divers  of 
whose  books,  the  nobility  and  the  magistracy  of  the  towns,  as 
well  in  general  as  in  particular,  are  painted  with  the  most  odious 
colours.'  "(2) 

By  this  it  seems  that  such  writings  as  those  of  Miss  Reed, 
Brutus,  and  the  *'  Foreign  Conspiracy,"  are  old  Presbyterian 
tricks.  In  fact,  when  we  look  at  the  libels  with  which  the  Cal- 
vinistic  press  is  teeming,  one  might  almost  imagine  that  Brandt 
was  drawing  a  picture  of  them  after  what  is  now  their  conduct 
and  character. 

*'  The  general  strife  V)as,  who  should  write  and  CALUMNI- 
ATE most.  All  the  streets  and  market  places  rang  with  the  songs 
and  ballads  made  upon  the  prisoners,  especially  upon  Oldenbarne- 
velt,  whom  every  one  curst,  sentenced,  and  condemned,  with  his 
abettors.  The  most  satyrical  papers  appeared  without  any  name 
to  them.  Among  the  rest,  one  was  entitled,  The  Golden  Legion 
of  the  New  St.  John:  another,  The  Golden  Bellows  of  the 
Spanish  Knave;  in  which  the  advocate  is  charged  with  taking 
money  of  the  Spaniards :  a  third.  The  Theatre  of  the  Arminians, 
composed  in  doggrel  rhimes,  with  several  other  pasquinades  of 
the  like  kind,  too  many  to  be  mustered  up  here.     Great  numbers 

(1)  Vol.  ii.  p.  448.  (2)  Page  339. 


453 

of  satyrical  prints  and  cuts  were  made  in  reproach  to  them ;  such 
as,  for  instance,  that  called  the  jSrminian  Bung  Cart :  the  Arini- 
nians'  LAST  WILL;  and  the  Sieve  of  Justice:  all  of  them 
ridiculing  and  exposing  the  Remonstrants,  the  past  administra- 
tion, the  discharging  the  warders,  the  change  of  the  magistrates, 
and,  in  a  word,  representing  every  incident  with  the  utmost 
SPITE  and  RANCOUR."(I) 

The  gentleman  has  told  us  that  it  was  the  mob  of  Boston,  mis- 
taking the  Convent  for  what  the  slanders  of  Calvinism  had  made 
of  it,  destroyed  it.  But  he  ought  to  know  that  this  also  is  an  old 
trick.  The  Calvinists  in  the  Arminian  controversy  had  recourse 
to  it  for  a  similar  purpose.  On  one  occasion,  in  1617,  the  mob 
were  instigated  to  fall  on  the  Remonstrant  heretics^  their  names 
being  known  and  their  houses  marked.  Brandt  speaks  of  these 
outrages  as  follows  : — 

"  The  damage  that  was  done  him,  as  Bishop  himself  declared, 
amounted  to  above  five  thousand  gilders,  besides  a  quantity  of 
books  that  belonged  to  other  persons,  which  were  partly  reco- 
vered. His  wife,  getting  out  of  the  house  at  last,  and  being 
pursued  by  part  of  the  mob,  who,  with  great  rage,  threatened  to 
murder  her,  sheltered  herself  in  a  house  on  the  Heer  Graft ;  but, 
not  being  able  to  stay  there,  she  climbed  over  the  garden  wall  of 
the  burgomaster  Gerard  Jacob  Witsen,  where  she  fell,  and  was 
taken  up  senseless ;  but  she  was  carried  into  the  house  with  great 
tenderness,  and  proper  means  were  used  to  bring  her  to  herself: 
when  she  was  recovered,  says  the  burgomaster,  '  Well,  neighbour, 
how  came  you  in  this  condition?'  Upon  which,  being  still  under 
great  disorder,  she  burst  out  into  these  words: — *  Ah!  sir,  this 
is  the  fruit  of  your  minister's  sermons,  who  enrage  and  exaspe- 
rate the  people  thus  against  usP  " 

Among  those  who  stood  looking  on,  and  applauding  the  fury 
of  the  mob,  there  was  one,  who,  hearing  their  insolence  blamed, 
made  answer  very  angrily: — "  It  were  pity  but  your  house  and 
five-and-twenty  more  were  treated  in  like  manner.  Another 
cried : — There  is  no  harm  done:  they  have  their  deserts.  If  four 
or  Jive  of  them  had  had  their  heads  cleft  in  the  meeting  house, 
it  would  have  been  well  done.  Another  said  : — TVhat  has  been 
done  by  the  boys  we  are  ready  to  take  upon  ourselves.  And 
another:— GOD  HAS  INSPIRED  THESE  CHILDREN  TO 
ACT  THUS ;  he  has  revealed  it  to  them,  that  the  Arminians 
seek  to  enslave  the  country  to  the  Spaniards,  and  makes  use  of 
those  lads  to  prevent  i7."(2) 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  in  the  M^hole  Controversy,  the  crime 
of  the  Arminians  was  the  exercise  of  the  rights  of  conscience. 
As  far  back  as  the  year  1600,  they  had  avowed  their  purpose  of 
requiring  the  magistrate,  "  according  to  his''place  and  calling,"  to 

(I)  Vol.  ii.  p.  566.  (2)  Page  295. 


454 

"remove  all  false  worship,"  but  that  of  Calvin.     Here  are  the 
words  of  Brandt. 

'*  The  following  year,  (1601,)  endeavours  were  reneived  to  per- 
suade the  magistrates  at  Sneek,  in  Freesland,  that  NO  OTHER 
SECTS  ought  to  be  allowed  the  liberty  of  religion,  besides  the 
Reformed.  And  Beza's  Discourse,  of  PUNISHING  HERE- 
TICS, was  translated  from  the  Latin  into  the  Low-Dutch  language, 
and  published  with  a  dedication  and  recommendation  of  it  to  the 
tnagistrates,  by  Goswin  Geldorp,  and  John  Bogerman,  minis- 
ters of  the  said  town,  in  the  Preface,  (which  also  related  what 
had  passed  the  year  before,  between  the  ministers  of  Sneek  and 
the  Anabaptists,)  there  were  the  following  expressions :  '  That 
God  had  made  it  a  duty  incumbent  on  the  magistrates  to  defend 
the  true  religion,  and  OPPOSE  THE  FALSE  WITH  ALL 
THEIR  MIGHT.  It  was,  they  said,  a  poisonous  notion ;  that 
the  Government  ought  not  to  trouble  itself  about  religion,  but  to 
leave  the  ministers  to  propagate  it  by  themselves  as  well  as  they 
could,  by  ecclesiastical  methods.  And  yet,  as  pernicious  as 
such  an  opinion  was,  it  was  very  agreeable  to  many,  who  found 
their  account  in  a  political,  (as  they  termed  it)  but  unchristian 
and  unlawful  peace,  whereby  every  man,  according  to  them,  was 
to  be  allowed  the  free  exercise  of  his  religion;  to  the  end,  for- 
sooth, that  no  discord  might  arise  between  countrymen  and  fellow- 
citizens.  This,  said  they,  is  'MAKING  PEACE  WITH  SA- 
TAN.' They  likewise  maintained,  'THAT  THERE  OUGHT 
TO  BE  BUT  ONE  RELIGION  ALLOWED.'  And  as  for 
that  objection,  that  this  would  be  lording  it  over  men's  consciences, 
they  replied,  '  That  this  was  the  means  to  restore  to  God,  to 
whom  it  belonged,  the  dominion  of  consciences,  according  to  his 
command;  seeing  they  only  attempted  to  execute  the  Divine 
COMMANDS,  BY  DIVINE  METHODS.'  (1)  Accordingly, 
by  way  of  '  moral  influence,^  as  the  gentleman  tells  us,  '  On 
the  seventh  of  September,  the  magistrates  of  Gronnigen  published 
a  new  order,  by  toll  of  bell,  concerning  religious  matters;  in 
which  was  said:  THAT  THEY  PROHIBITED  THE  EXER- 
CISE OF  ALL  OTHER  RELIGIONS,  BESIDES  THE  RE- 
FORMED. So  that  whoever  should  presume  to  rent  his  house 
OR  GROUND,  TO  THE  ANABAPTISTS,  OR  PAPISTS,  OR 
ANY  OTHER  SECTS,  contrary  to  the  ecclesiastical  laws  of 
their  city,  for  the  use  of  their  meetings  or  ministers,  should  forfeit, 
for  every  such  offence,  the  sum  of  ten  dollars,  as  should  likewise 
the  persons  that  PRESUMED  TO  PREACH  THERE,  or  else 
be  confined  to  bread  aiid  water,  for  the  space  of  fourteen  days. 
And  if  they  offended  the  third  time,  they  were  to  be  banished 
from  the  city,  and  the  jurisdiction  thereof.  And  all  the  people 
that  were  found  at  such  meetings,  should  forfeit,  for  each  offence, 

(1)  Vol.  ii.  p.  8. 


455 

two  dollars.  Whoever  was  discovered  to  re-baptize  any  person, 
should  forfeit  twenty  dollars,  and  upon  a  second  conviction,  be 
put  to  bread  and  water,  and  condemned  as  above.  Unbaptized 
children  should  be  incapable  of  inheriting.  None  should  be  ad- 
mitted to  any  public  or  private  office,  BUT  UPON  SOLEMN 
OATHS.  He  that  refused  to  take  an  oath,  should  be  punished 
according  to  law.  All  that  lived  with  women  in  concubinage,  and 
without  lawful  marriage,  should  be  punished  as  whoremongers,  if 
they  did  not  marry,  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  laws,  within 
the  space  of  a  month.  Whoever  married  incestuously,  or  within 
the  forbidden  degrees,  or  suffered  themselves  to  be  joined  in  ma- 
trimony OUT  OF  THE  REFORMED  CHURCH,  should  not 
enjoy  any  advantage  thereof,  nor  inherit  any  estate,  NEITHER 
SHOULD  THEIR  CHILDREN  BE  LEGITIMATE:  besides 
all  which,  they  should  be  punished  according  as  the  case  de- 
served." (1) 

The  bitter  experience  which  the  Baptists  had  of  Calvinism, 
taught  them  to  regret  the  absence  of  the  Catholic  rule,  under 
which,  as  they  stated,  "  they  lived  quietly,  and  were  connived  at." 
But  it  was  not  the  Catholics  and  Baptists  alone,  that  had  reason 
to  complain,  under  this  spiritual  and  temporal  despotism  of  Cal- 
vinism. The  Lutherans,  and  the  moderate  party  called  Remon- 
strants, had  equal  reason  to  exchange  sympathies.  No  matter  by 
what  name  the  ^^ false  worship^^  was  called,  the  conscience  of  the 
orthodox  was  oppressed  with  remorse  for  the  violation  of  God's 
second  commandment,  until  it  was  *'  removed"  by  the  "  nursing 
fathers"  of  the  Church,  "  according  to  their  place  and  calling." 
The  offence  which  Lutheranism  gave  to  their  "  tender  consciences," 
may  be  gathered  from  the  following  statement  in  Brandt ;  speak- 
ing of  one  of  their  assemblies  held  1600,  he  says: 

"In  this  assembly,  there  were  likewise  some  resolutions  taken 
in  prejudice  of  the  Lutherans.  It  appeared  (as  the  Journal  of  the 
said  Synod  has  it,)  that  the  Martinists,  Ubiquitarians,  Flaccians, 
and  such  like  sectaries,  were  much  increased  in  the  country,  dis- 
covering great  animosities,  and  freely  venting  their  reproaches 
against  the  Reformed  Church.  The  Deputies  of  the  South  Hol- 
land Synod  consulted  those  of  the  North  about  what  course 
should  be  taken,  and  it  was  resolved,  That  the  ministers  should 
lay  before  the  magistrates  an  account  of  the  places  where  the 
Lutherans  met,  WITH  REASONS  FOR  SUPPRESSING  THE 
CONVENTICLES,  AND  PUTTING  A  STOP  TO  THE 
RAILINGS  OF  THOSE  PEOPLE What  was  af- 
terwards resolved  by  the  Court  of  Justice  against  the  Lutherans, 
as  also  the  fresh  attempts  of  the  Clergy,  may  be  gathered  from 
what  is  recorded  in  the  books  of  the  States,  and  their  committees 
concerning  it,  the  sum  of  which  is  as  follows : 

(1)  Page  9. 


456 

"  There  appeared  at  the  Assembly  of  the  Lords,  the  States  of 
Holland,  Arnoldus  Cornelius,  and  Bernardus  la  Faille,  ministers 
of  Delft,  and  the  Hague,  as  deputed  by  the  Synod,  in  order  to 
acquaint  them  that  they  had  been  frequently  intreated  by  those  of 
the  Church  and  magistracy  of  Woerden,  to  represent  to  the  Lords 
the  States,  the  scandal  which  was  occasioned  to  good  and  sin- 
cere minds,  by  the  too  public  exercise  of  religion,  performed  by 
those  who,  indeed,  called  themselves  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
but  who  were  not  so  ;  forasmuch  as  our  religion,  which  is  styled 
the  Reformed,  has  a  great  conformity  to  it  in  the  matter  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  in  other  points.  They  therefore  prayed,  that 
the  resolution  or  sentence  formed  by  the  court  against  one  of  their 
preachers,  MIGHT  BE  PUT  IN  EXECUTION;  and  those  of 
the  aforesaid  Confession,  living  within  the  said  town  of  Woerden, 
BE  PROHIBITED  to  receive  any  other  minister  in  his  stead, 
and  BE  HINDERED,  as  far  as  possible,  from  exercising  that 
religion.  The  said  deputies  moreover  alleged,  that  there  ought 
likewise  some  care  to  be  taken  in  other  towns,  where  the  said 
religion  was  also  practised,  particularly  at  Amsterdam,  and  Rot- 
terdam ;  to  the  end  that  the  religion  which  alone  is  publicly  al- 
loived  in  the  United  Provinces,  (as  being  the  TRUE  Christian 
religion,)  might  be  the  better  maintained,  and  all  offence  removed; 
requesting  the  due  attention  of  the  States,  to  these  matters."  (1) 

The  magistrates,  less  intolerant  than  the  ministers,  allowed  the 
exercise  of  the  Lutheran  religion  in  that  particular  instance,  on 
the  following  humiliating  condition  : — 

*'  That  the  designs  of  the  States  had  always  been,  and  still  were, 
to  force  no  man's  conscience ;  and,  accordingly,  that  he,  the  said 
Glaserus,  should  be  connived  at,  in  proceeding  with  all  peaceable- 
ness,  discretion,  and  good  manners,  to  teach  and  preach  in  his 
Conventicle,  at  Woerden,  as  formerly."  (2) 

But  their  intolerance  towards  other  sects  is  not  to  be  wondered  at, 
when  we  see  the  extent  and  malice  of  their  persecutions  against 
their  own  brethren,  the  Remonstrants.  These  denied  Calvin's  doc- 
trine of  eternal,  immutable,  and  absolute  predestination,  with  its  ap- 
pendages, and  for  THIS,  they  were  calumniated,  suspended,  de- 
prived, expelled  from  their  Churches,  banished  from  the  country^ 
imprisoned,  or  put  to  death,  by  the  intolerant  orthodoxy  of  "  high- 
toned  Calvinism."  The  Synod  of  Dort  decided  against  the  Ar- 
minians  and  in  favour  of  the  Gomarists.  The  real  merits  of  the 
dispute  may  be  understood  from  the  manner  in  which  Gomarus 
himself  met  the  Arminian  argument,  which  was  then,  and  is  now, 
and  will  be  to  eternity,  unanswered  and  unanswerable. 

"  Nobody,  said  he,  maintains  that  God  absolutely  decreed  to 
reprobate  men  without  sin ;  but  as  he  decreed  the  end,  so  he  like- 

(1)  Page  15.  (2)  Page  16. 


457 

wise  did  the  means;  that  is,  HE  PREDESTINED  HIM  TO 
SIN,  AS  THE  ONLY  MEANS  OF  DEATH."  (1)  The  au- 
dience may  judge  from  this,  of  the  merits  of  the  case. 

"It  happened  one  time,"  says  Brandt,  (speaking  of  a  Remon- 
strant,) "  that  walking  on  the  beach  at  Home,  he  met  with  two 
ministers,  who  having  a  mind  to  joke  with  him,  said  Robert, 
you  seem  very  pensive,  what  is  the  matter  with  you  ?  He 
replied,  'tis  true,  brethren,  I  was  considering  tvho  is  the  Author  of 
Sin.  They :  Who  do  you  hold  to  be  the  author  of  sin  ?  He :  When 
sin  was  first  committed,  the  man  laid  it  upon  the  woman,  and  the 
woman  accused  the  serpent;  but  the  serpent  was  at  that  time 
young,  and  stupid,  and  silent;  but  now  he  is  grown  old  and  dar- 
ing, and  comes  to  the  SYNOD  OF  DORT,  and  says,  that  God 
is  the  author  of  sin. ^^  (2) 

The  spirit  which  actuated  that  Synod,  may  be  understood  from 
the  following  extract  from  Brandt: 

*'  It  was  likewise  reported,  that  the  late  President  Bogerman, 
having  had  a  long  conference  with  a  great  man  at  the  Hague,  soon 
after  the  breaking  up  of  the  Synod,  should,  upon  his  return,  say 
with  much  pleasure,  to  a  friend  of  his  at  Ley  den,  God  be  praised, 
we  shall  have  but  one  religion  in  all  the  Provinces:  we  will 
first  EXTIRPATE  THE  ARMINIANS,  AND  THEN  ALL 
THE  OTHER  SECTS  MUST  COME  TO  THE  CHURCH, 
OR  FLY  THE  COUNTRY.  Other  hot-headed  zealots  cried, 
We  shall  now  bring  matters  to  such  a  pass,  in  a  short  time,  that 
people  will  give  money  to  see  an  Arminian.  These  were  the 
first  fruits  of  those  bitter  seeds,  as  the  Remonstrants  thought,  which 
Bogerman  had  been  sowing  seventeen  years  before,  in  the  Pre- 
face to  Beza's  little  tract,  about  putting  heretics  to  death.  They 
were  also  of  opinion,  that  this  placard  was  partly  the  effect  of  the 
furious  zeal  of  divers  of  ihe  Synodical  members,  who  hardly  talk- 
ed of  any  thing  else  but  of  using  the  secular  arm,;  of  rooting 
out  the  tares  or  weeds,  by  the  authority  of  the  civil  magistrates  ; 
of  banishing  the  Five  Articles,  and  the  teachers  of  them,  out  of 
the  land ;  of  forbidding  the  Eemonstrants  to  preach  or  write. 
This  was  the  view,  they  thought,  of  the  Synodical  request,  as 
contained  in  the  sentence  of  the  Remonstrants,  That  their  High 
Mightinesses  would  not  suffer  ANY  OTHER  doctrine  than  that 
of  the  Synod,  to  be  publicly  taught  in  their  dominions,  and  cause 
the  decrees  of  the  said  Synod  to  be  firmly  and  perpetually  main- 
tained. This  opinion,  therefore,  that  the  Synod  was  the  great 
and  principal  occasion  of  making  such  a  placard,  very  much 
increased  the  aversion  which  some  had  conceived  against  that 
body."  (3) 

These  points  were  carried  out  into  fearful  practice.  To  hold  any 
office  in  the  church  or  state,  to  be  a  schoolmaster,  or  even  an 

(1)  Brandt,  vol.  iii.  p.  103.  (2)  P.  424.  (3)  P.  402,  403. 

58 


458 

organist,  it  was  necessary  to  swear  a  belief  in  the  horrible  doctrine 
which  had  been  approved  by  the  8ynod. 

"  As  for  the  schools,  it  was  agreed  that  since  since  all  the  school- 
masters were  required  to  sign  the  Confession,  and  Catechism, 
and  some  also  the  Canons  of  Dort,  which  tended  to  implant  Cal- 
vinism in  the  youth;  therefore,  those  of  the  clergy  that  minister- 
ed in  the  country,  should  take  care  to  warn  parents  not  to  send 
their  children  to  Calvinistical  masters,  but  rather  to  let  them  be 
taught  at  home,  or  to  act  in  that  matter  according  to  the  liberty 
that  should  be  granted  to  the  Mennonites,  or  other  sects."  (1) 

The  following  case  is  recorded  of  an  organist,  and  shows  the 
zeal  of  the  Calvinists  to  "  remove  all  false  worship:" — 

"  This  man  was  likewise  summoned  to  sign  the  Formulary  of 
the  National  Synod;  but  he  earnestly  entreated  the  magistrates, 
that  they  would  not  require  it  of  him.  lie  said,  That  his  art  had 
nothing  common  with  the  one  or  the  other  doctrine :  that  indeed 
he  played  in  the  Church,  but  did  not  preach  there.  But  this 
would  not  avail  him  ;  and  as  they  insisted  on  his  subscribing,  he 
burst  out  at  last  into  these  expressions  :  *  Gentlemen,  I  can't  pos- 
sibly subscribe  the  canons,  BUT  IF  YOU  PLEASE  TO  SET 
THEM  TO  TUNES,  I  AM  READY  TO  PLAY  THEM  IN 
THE  CHURCH,  ON  MY  ORGAN:  in  this  manner  I  will 
serve  you  with  all  my  heart.  Playing  the  canons  to  any  tune,  is 
agreeable  enough  to  my  profession,  but  subscribing  them  is  against 
my  conscience.'  This,  his  bantering  offer,  was  more  displeas- 
ing- to  the  maoristrates  than  his  serious  refusal;  insomuch  that 
neither  his  art,  7ior  the  interposition  of  his  friends,  could  pre- 
vent his  being  turned  out."  (2) 

But  they  first  turned  the  Remonstrants  out  of  their  Churches, 
and  then  would  not  allow  them  to  meet  for  worship,  even  in  the 
open  air.     It  was  demanded  by  the  Calvinists,  that: — 

"The  placards  against  forbidden  meetings,  might  be  revised  and 
enforced  in  such  manner,  that  those  who  frequented  such  meet- 
ings might  forfeit  their  upper  garments  ;  and  those  who  went 
armed,  their  weapons ;  and  that  they  might  be  obliged  to  depart, 
or  else  be  fallen  upon  wherever  they  were ;  and  that  all  those  who 
corresponded  or  conversed  with  any  of  the  exiled  persons,  should 
pay  a  pecuniary  fine  of  six  hundred  gilders,  and  likewise  for- 
feit such  offices  or  employments  as  they  held ;  and  in  case  they 
covdd  not  answ^er  the  said  fine  of  six  liundrnd  gilders,  they  should 
be  sent  away  into  banishment,  or  suffer  other  arbitrary  punish- 
ments." (3) 

"  On  the  1 6th  of  February,  they  (the  Remonstrants)  held  another 
meeting,  likewise  out  of  town,  at  the  house  of  the  Bloomersdyke, 
but  before  the  sermon  was  half  over,  the  Dykegrave  Dune  fell  upon 
them  fuiiously,  with  a  number  of  soldiers.  They  who  could  not 
save  themselves  by  a  timely  flight,  were  plundered.     The  women 

(1)  Page  23.  (2)  Page  474,  (3)  Page  177. 


459 

were  stript  even  to  their  iinder-petticoats,  and  the  men  Avere  rob- 
bed of  their  cloaks,  and  what  money  they  had  about  them.  The 
soldiers  attacked  them,  as  if  they  had  to  do  with  the  common 
enemy ;  and  some  were  even  dragged  along  the  fields  by  the  hair 
of  their  heads.  The  soldiers  seized  a  young  woman,  one  of 
which  supported  her  body,  whilst  the  other  dragged  her  all  un- 
covered, by  the  legs,  along  the  rugged  ice,  just  as  a  sledge  is  drawn. 
In  short,  they  used  the  poor  girl  so  cruelly,  that  she  died  of  it  soon 
after."  (1) 

Thus,  sir,  we  see  that  in  Holland  the  doctrines  of  the  Presby- 
terian religion  sprang  up  into  the  same  cruel  system  of  persecution 
which  marked  its  progress  and  its  presence  in  those  countries 
of  which  I  spoke  in  my  last  speech.  The  creed  of  the  Synod  of 
Dort  is  the  creed  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Calvinists  in  this  coun- 
try;  and  its  libellous, -turbulent,  intolerant,  persecuting  spirit  is 
appropriately  represented  by  one,  and,  as  far  as  I  know,  by  only 
one  of  its  ministers  in  the  United  States,  Dr.  Brownlee.  The 
gentleman  calls  him  "  Ids  gallant  colleague.''''  He  is  exactly 
what  the  case  required — a  foreigner,  a  scion  of  Scotch  bigotry, 
grafted  on  the  stock  of  Dutch  Calvinism.  The  saintly  commu- 
nion between  these  "  gallant  colleagues,"  proves  that  in  doctrine 
there  is  no  difference  between  their  creeds.  Besides  this,  the 
Westminster  Assembly  (that  made  the  gentleman's  faith,  to  save 
him  the  trouble  of  looking  for  it  in  the  Bible)  approved  of  the 
decision  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  on  the  doctrines  in  question.  So 
that,  were  it  not  for  the  protection  of  equal  religious  right  secured 
by  the  AMERICAN  CONSTITUTION,  the  same  causes  would 
produce  the  same  effects,  here,  which  they  never  failed  to  produce 
elsewhere.  The  gentleman  has  said  that  the  Confession  does  not 
mean  "  FORCE,  but  truth,  moral  influence,  argument,  the 
press,  the  Bible,''''  &lq.  Sir,  a  greater  imposition  on  credulity 
never  was  attempted.  There  is  no  historical  evidence  to  sustain 
the  assertion ;  and  the  whole  history  of  Calvinism,  in  its  begin- 
ning, and  middle,  and  end,  (by  losing  the  power  to  persecute,) 
establishes  its  refutation.  NO  FORCE  ! ! !  Read,  sir,  its  sedi- 
tions and  rebellions — read  its  penal  laws  and  persecutions,  and 
you  will  blush  for  its  cruelties,  as  well  as  for  t$e  ignorance  that 
could  assert  that  it  does  not  mean  "  force."  Can  the  gentleman 
tell  me  of  ONE  SINGLE  COUNTRY,  in  which  it  was  estab- 
lished by  any  other  means?  I  answer,  not  one  •  and  I  challenge 
contradiction  with  proof.  He  cannot  show  one.  Can  he  tell  me 
of  ONE  SINGLE  COUNTRY,  in  which,  having  obtained  the 
political  ascendancy,  it  did  not  employ  "  FORCE,"  to  crush  the 
liberty  of  conscience,  speaking,  preaching,  printing,  in  all  those 
who  were  not  prepared  to  think,  and  speak,  and  preach,  and  print 
in  accordance  with  (or  at  least  not  against)  its  tyrannical  dogmas  ? 

(1)  Page  231. 


4(30 

Not  one,  sir,  on  the  face  of  the  earth!  If  he  can,  let  him  name 
it,  and  I  pledge  myself  to  expose  the  imposition.  Let  the  gentleman, 
then,  reserve  such  assertions  for  the  Presbyterian  pulpit,  or  those 
edifying  assemblies  of  which  we  had  a  specimen  last  winter,  in 
Mr.  M'Calla's  church.  Let  him  hazard  them,  where  he  speaks 
to  those  who  know  no  better;  but  let  him  not  venture  on  them  in 
my  presence,  at  the  risk  of  exposure  by  history  such  as  he  has 
now  received.     I  return  to  the  point. 

The  DOCTRINE  of  the  Presbyterian  religion,  in  these  United 
States,  the  same  as  in  Geneva,  Scotland,  and  Holland,  requires, 
by  a  commandment  of  God,  that  its  votaries  should,  "  according 

TO  EACH  one's  PLACE  AND  CALLING,  REMOVE  ALL  FALSE  WOR- 
SHIP, AND  ALL    THE  MONUMENTS  OF  IDOLATRY."       But  ALL  WOrship 

besides  their  own,  being  founded  on  heretical  doctrine,  is  "  false  ;" 
therefore  they  are  bound  BY  THEIR  DOCTRINE  to  remove  it. 
Q.  e.  d.  He  says  that  this  is  to  be  done  by  "  moral  influence;" 
and  such  an  acknowledgment  from  a  minister  of  CALVIN'S 
religion,  is  ihe  highest  tribute  of  praise  that  ever  was  bestowed 
indirectly  on  the  American  Constitution,  which  will  not  tolerate  the 
employment  of  "  force."  Yet  the  Presbyterian  Church  still  re- 
*tains  the  warrant  from  God,  under  which  their  fathers  employed 
it:  although  the  Constitution  forbids  the  execution  of  the  heavenly 
mandate.  Which  of  these  will  eventually  triumph  over  the  other, 
time  only  will  determine.  The  pretext  now  is  to  put  down  popery. 
But  this  is  the  pretext  under  which  they  put  down  the  Episcopalians 
in  England,  the  Arminians  in  Holland,  and  the  Catholics  every 
where.  Of  their  persecutions  of  the  Catholics  in  Holland,  I  have 
said  but  little,  but  there  is  one  single  case  recorded,  which  is 
enough  to  show  how  infinite  is  the  barbarity  of  a  doctrine  which 
could  so  demonize  the  human  heart.  It  is  related  by  Brandt,  a 
Reformed  minister,  who  was  no  friend  to  the  Catholics.  I  shall 
give  it  in  his  own  words :  — 

"  There  happened  something  in  North  Holland  about  this  time, 
which  will  appear  a  bloody  spot  in  our  history:  '  Divers  popish 
housekeepers  were,  at  the  instigation  of  Sonoy,  very  inhumanly 
treated  by  an  extraordinary  tribunal,  or  court  of  judicature,  in 
order  to  discover  a  supposed  plot,  upon  the  forced  and  impro- 
bable evidence  of  certain  felons,  who  all  of  them  RECANTED 
their  accusation  at  the  point  of  death.  One  of  the  said  papists, 
named  Koppe  Cornelison,  was  TORTURED  TO  DEATH;  his 
son  Nanning  was  stretched  on  the  rack  two  or  three-and-twenty 
times,  with  new-invented  cruelties,  notwithstanding  he  attested 
his  innocency  every  time  he  was  taken  down;  and,  at  last, 
WAS  QUARTERED— HIS  HEART  WAS  TORN  OUT  OF 
HIS  BODY.  A  little  before  his  death,  when  he  ought  to  have 
been  allowed  some  time  to  think  of  heaven,  and  the  condition  of  his 
soul,  the  judges  gave  him  SWEET  WINE,  TO  CONFOUND 
HIS  SPEECH  AND  UNDERSTANDING,  which  he,  through 


461 

fainlness  and  thirst,  greedily  swallowed ;  however,  it  did  not  so  far 
deprive  him  of  sense,  but  that,  when  he  mounted  the  scaffold,  he 
again  declared  his  innocence.  But  the  minister,  Jurian  Eppeson, 
un^Gv pretence  of  strengthening  him  with  arguments  from  Scrip- 
ture, interrupted  him  with  noise  and  clamour  ;  reproving  him  for 
denying  the  crime,  and  affirming  that  he  had  owned  it  before. 
Upon  which  the  patient  cited  him  to  appear  before  the  tribunal 
of  God  within  three  days,  or,  as  others  say,  within  four  or  five. 
The  said  minister  returned  home,  after  the  execution  of  Nanning, 
much  troubled  in  his  mind,  continually  complaining  of  the  sum- 
mons given  him,  and  taking  his  bed,  became  a  corpse  within  the 
time  limited.  In  like  manner  Peter  Nanningson  was  most  cruelly 
tortured  no  less  than  four  or  Jive-and-twenty  times  upon  the 
rack ;  and  after  him  John  Jeromson  and  Peter  Ellertson,  both  of 
them  popish  burghers  of  Horn,  were  apprehended  upon  the  ex- 
torted confession  of  Nanning,  and  being  carried  to  prison,  the 
latter  of  them  was  racked  four  times  in  two  days.'  "(1) 

Sir,  you  sicken  at  the  narrative ;  and  no  wonder.  Not  satisfied 
with  destroying  life,  they  aim  at  the  destruction  of  the  soul. 
They  try  to  make  him  drunk  on  the  brink  of  eternity,  in  order  to 
extort  from  drunkenness  the  worthless  confirmation  of  their  own 
slanders— and  then  plv  him  with  texts  of  SCRIPTURE  ! ! !  But 
why  not  ?  Had  not'  God  "  FORE-ORDAINED  WHATSO- 
EVER COMES  TO  PASS?"  Of  course  the  "racking,"  and 
"  sweet  wine,"  and  all  were  "fore-ordained,"  and  consequently 
these  saints  were  only  carrying  out  God's  decree. 

The  duplicity  which  stands  so  uniformly  prominent  in  the 
schemes  of  Presbyterians  for  the  attainment  of  their  political  ends, 
can  be  explained  only  on  the  doctrine  of  "  fore-ordination."  We 
have  seen  how  they  persecuted  the  Lutherans  in  Holland,  and 
yet,  when  it  seemed  likely  to  serve  their  purpose,  they  wished  to 
unite  with  them,  just  as  Dr.  Ely  was  willing  to  unite  with  Bap- 
tists, Episcopalians,  Arminians,  Lutherans,  &c.  to  form  a  "  Chris- 
tian party  in  politics,"  and  place  "  sound  Presbyterians"  in  places 
of  political  trust,  where  they  might  be  "  nursing  fathers"  to  the 
church,  "  accordiHg  to  each  one's  place  and  calling."  The  object 
of  all  such  unions  tendered  by  them,  was  most  accurately  de- 
scribed by  the  Lutherans  of  Germany,  nearly  two  hundred  years 
ago.     Brandt  has  recorded  the  occasion,  and  the  issue  of  it : — 

"  Before  this,"  says  he,  "  the  Reformed  had  several  times  offered 
peace  and  brotherhood  to  the  Lutherans ;  but  now  the  condemning 
and  persecuting  the  Remonstrants  had  so  far  cut  off  all  hopes  of  such 
a  wholesome  union,  that  the  Theological  Faculty  at  Wittenburg, 
in  Saxony,  published  a  book  this  year,  under  the  title  of  '  A  Faith- 
ful Warning  to  all  the  Lutheran  Christians  in  Bohemia,  Moravia, 
Silesia,   and   other   countries   thereunto   belonging,  carefully   to 

(1)  Vol.  i.  p.  .316. 


462 

abstain  from  the  erroneous  and  highly  pernicious  Calvinistical 
religion.'  In  which  book  they  endeavoured  to  expose  the  scan- 
dalous and  fraudulent  dealings,  which,  as  they  said,  the  Cal- 
vinists  used,  and  had  used  for  several  years,  in  offering  spiritual 
fraternity  so  often  to  the  Lutherans,  adding  as  follows : 

"  What  good  there  is  to  be  expected  from  such  brethren,  may 
easily  be  gathered  from  the  Synod  of  Bart,  and  their  proceedings. 
The  Calvinists  had  several  disputes  with  the  Arminians,  particu- 
larly about  the  article  of  grace  or  election,  in  which  the  latter 
defended  our  opinion,  and  the  former  that  of  Calvin.  In  this 
controversy  the  Calvinists  at  length  showed  so  much  heat,  that, 
by  a  hasty  decree  of  that  synod,  they  condemned,  the  Arminians 
and  their  doctrines,  without  allowing  them  to  make  any  defence, 
DEPRIVING  THEM  OF  THE  EXERCISE  OF  THEIR 
RELIGION,  and  BANISHING  their  most  eminent  ministers 
from  their  country  for  ever.  Was  not  that  a  very  brotherly  'pro- 
ceeding ?  If  they  thus  treated  such  who  differed  from  them  in  a 
little  more  than  one  article,  viz  :  that  of  election  or  predestina- 
tion, what  must  we  expect,  who  difler  from  them  in  so  many  ? 
Men  of  sense  may  easily  discover  what  they  would  be  at.  They 
labour  now  to  get  the  BRACHIUM  SECULARE,  THE  CIVIL 
MAGISTRATE  ON  THEIR  SIDE,  and  to  bring  such  as  are  of 
their  opinions  into  the  best  offices.  If  this  succeeds,  we  shall  soon 
see  a  general  synod  called  in  Germany,  those  of  the  Calvinistical 
religion  'presiding  and  having  the  direction  of  all  affairs,  judg- 
ing them  according  to  their  own  pleasure,  not  once  hearing  us, 
or  allowing  us  to  sit  in  the  same  synod,  but,  as  ivas  done  at  Dort, 
rashly  censuring  our  doctrine  as  false,  hindering  the  exercise  of 
it,  and  driving  away  the  Lutheran  ministers,  and,  unless  God  pre- 
vents it,  totally  extirpating  our  religion.  We  conclude  from  all 
this,  that  their  offers  oi fraternal  coimnunion  are  not  sincere,  but 
are  only  designed  as  a  feint,  till  they  can  gather  strength  and 
courage  to  possess  themselves  of  our  churches.  And,  if  a  prince 
of  their  persuasion,  should  in  time  be  raised  to  the  imperial  dig- 
nity, such  a  spirit  as  they  are  of  would  be  sufficient  to  involve 
us  in  blood  and  destruction,  and  we  poor  Lutherans  should  be 
butchered  like  sheep  by  these  our  worthy  brethren :  for  with 
them  His  a  principle  of  RELIGION  THAT  HERETICS 
OUGHT  TO  BE  ROOTED  OUT  BY  FORCE ;  and  THAT 
NONE  BUT  THE  TRUE  RELIGION  SHOULD  BE  TO- 
LERATED in  a  well-governed  state,  as  CALVIN,  BEZA,  and 
several  others  of  their  leaders  maintain.  From  hence  they  will 
infer,  that  the  Lutherans  are  heretics  ;  to  wit,  Nestorians,  Euty- 
chians,  Pelagians,  &c. ;  therefore  this  will  be  followed  by  a 
bloody  decree :  the  Lutherans  ought  to  be  extirpated  with  the 
sword.  This  will  be  the  final  determination  of  our  Calvinistical 
brethren ;  such  good  are  we  to  expect  from  them.  'Tis  an 
-^sopical  brotherhood  which  they  offer  to  us,  that  is  to  say,  such 


463 

peace  and  amity  as  the  wolf  offered  to  the  sheep,  tlie  better  to 
seize  and  devour  them.  Let  no  man  then  be  imposed  upon  by 
the  amicable  name  of  brotherhood :  'tis  under  this  specious  pre- 
tence, that  they  are  seeking  our  destruction ;  and  whoever  joins 
himself  to  these  Calvinists,  becomes  partaker  of  all  that  deceit 
which  they  conceal,  and  all  the  vile  intrigues  ivhich  they  have 
chiefly  levejfed  at  the  Lutheran  churches. ""(l) 

This  extract  shows  that  the  doctrine  of  "  removing  all  false 
worship"  is  no  new  discovery  in  the  Presbyterian  creed.  The 
Lutherans  knew  it,  and  knew  its  meaning  from  their  own  observa- 
tion, which  the  history  of  their  religion  ever  since  has  only  served 
to  confirm. 

Let  me  now  sum  up  the  argument.     If  I  have  stated  the  truth, 
(and  if  I  have  not  I  beg  the  gentleman  to  point  out  the  instance,) 
the  following  conclusions  are  clearly  and   logically  established: 
1.  That  the  Presbyterians   have   scaled  the  places   Of  political 
power  in  every  country  where  their  religion  has  been  established, 
not  by  "  moral  influence,"  but  by  sedition,  libels,  force,  violence 
and  bloodshed.     2.  That  they  established  that  religion,  wherever 
the  government  which  they  attempted  to  overthrow  did  not  take 
strong  and  timely  measures  for  its  own  safety.     3.  That  when  in 
political  power,  they  persecuted  in  every  case,  and  in  every 
degree  of  the  principle,  from  the  imposition  of  fine,  to  the  shed- 
ding of  blood.     4.  That  their  persecutions  have  been  founded 
on,  and  justified  by,  the  doctrines  of  their  religion.     5.  That  they 
constituted  themselves  the  guardians  of  God's  honour,  and  the 
avengers  of  the  insult  offered  to  Him  by  what  they  arrogantly 
term  "  false  worship,"  and  "  idolatry."     And,  6.  That,  there- 
fore, their  doctrine  is  opposed,   1st.  "  To  religious  liberty," 
which    is    the    "  right   of   every   man    to   worship    Ahnighty 
God,  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  without 
injuring  or  invading  the  rights  of  others;^'' — and,  2d.  That  it  is 
opposed  to  "  CIVIL  liberty,"  by  which  we  understand  the  abso- 
lute rights  of  the  individual,  restrained  only  for  the  purpose  of 
order  in  society.     Now  I  maintain  that  these  positions  have  been 
established   by  the   united   attestation   of  facts    that   cannot   be 
denied,  and  of  reasoning,  that  cannot  be  refuted.     The  gentleman 
will  say  that  they  have  not  been  established.     But  he  will  take 
special  care  to  avoid  meeting  the  question.     The  public  must 
decide. 

The  gentleman  boasts  that  Piesbyterians  have  not  persecuted 
in  the  tlnited  States.  Granted.  But  I  give  the  glory  of  their 
forbearance  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  ;  the  better  spirit 
of  other  denominations ;  the  liberality  of  the  age ;  or  any  thing 
else — rather  than  the  doctrine  which  makes  it  of  divine  obligation 
for  Presbyterians  to   "  REVOVE   ALL  FALSE  WORSHIP, 

(I)  Pages  330,  331. 


464 

AND  ALL   THE    MONUMENTS  OF  IDOLATRY."     The 

duties  of  the  citizen,  and  of  the  sectarian,  are  in  direct  conflict.  The 
act  of  "  removing,"  which  is  obedience  to  God,  is  disobedience 
to  the  laws.  The  act  of  obedience  to  the  laws,  is,  like  the  viola- 
tion of  the  Sabbath,  an  act  of  disobedience  to  God,  according  to 
Presbyterian  doctrine, 

4 


465 


"  Is  the  Presbyterian  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  ?'' 


NEGATIVE  v.— MR.  BRECKINRIDGE. 

Mr.  President  : — If  scandal  be  argument,  or  exultation  be 
victory,  or  joy  at  notoriety  and  exposure  be  the  tests  of  a  good 
cause,  then  we  must  yield  the  palm  to  the  prince  of  Jesuits.    . 

The  man  who  challenges  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church,  can- 
not it  is  true,  confess  himself  defeated  by  one  of  the  feeblest  of 
her  sons,  without  supernumerary  shame.  And  therefore  it  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at  that  he  covers  his  wounds  by  the  argumentum 
ad  verecimdiam  which  he  tries  to  draw  from  the  charge  that  his 
opponent  has  aid.  Heaven  and  truth  are  aid  enough  for  our 
cause.  David's  sling,  and  David's  stone,  with  David's  God,  are 
enough  for  the  vaunting  Goliath  of  the  Philistines  without  the  aid 
of  Saul's  armour,  or  "  of  patriarchal  hajids."  Yet  it  is  a  reluctant 
tribute  paid  to  my  arguments  that  the  foe  in  the  field  cries  out 
"  that  the  patriarch's  hands"  are  upon  him  ! 

The  complaint  that  m/i/  arguments  are  "  like  Joseph's  coat,"  is 
only  an  unconscious  condemnation  of  his  oivn.  He  is  leading  in 
the  attack.  I  follow  as  respondent.  When  he  was  beaten  on  the 
papal  question,  he  gave  vituperation,  and  ^jer50M«/ assaults  instead 
of  the  defence  of  his  cause.  At  that  time,  he  charged  me  with 
tacitly  confessing  myself  personally  indefensible,  because  I  pursued 
the  line  of  my  discussion,  and  paid  but  little  attention  to  his  abuse. 
I  then  arrested  the  argument  to  meet  the  calumniator:  how  effec- 
tually the  public  must  judge.  1  had  no  sooner  renewed  the  argu- 
ment, than  he  resorted  again  to  calumny.  I  then  resolved  to  re- 
duce my  reply  and  exposure  of  his  personalities  into  one  body  ,  and 
that  body  was  introduced  into  my  last  speech;  If  it  be  o^ ''^  many 
colours,'"  it  was  in  exposure  of  a  chameleon.  If  not  bathed  in  blood 
like  Joseph's  coat,  it  is  not  the  fault  of  Joseph'' s  envious  and  en- 
raged pursuer.  He  had  charged  me  with  no  less  than  eleven 
calumnies;  and  that  too  while  he  was  professing  to  defend  his 
church  against  the  charge  of  enmity  to  civil  and  religious  liberty. 
The  1st  calumny  he  charged  me  with  was,  for  saying  that  his 
church  did  not  keep  fiiith  with  heretics;  2d,  that  she  trifled  with 
oaths,  if  against  her  interests:  3d,  that  she  absolved  subjects  from 

59 


466 

allegiance  to  heretics;  4tli,  that  I  had  slandered  Bellarmine ;  5th, 
about  the  second  commandment;  6th,  about  the  translation  of  the 
Trentine  Catechism;  7tli,  about  calling  the  Pope  God  ;  8lh,  &c. 
&/C.  (see  the  particulars  at  large  in  my  last  speech.)  Most  of  these 
charges  against  me  were  drawn  from  a  former  controversy.  In 
replying  to  his  digressions  could  I  fail  to  digress'/  He  abused 
me  first,  because  I  would  not  follow  him.  Now  he  ridicules  me 
fordoing  it.  "  Olla  Podrida !"  The  muck-rake  is  for  "  chopt 
straw  ;"  as  well  as  the  etheriai  sivord  for  the  old  serpent.  If  1 
stoop  to  such  company,  I  must  answer  to  its  calls.  Of  that  com- 
pany I  confess  to  you,  gentlemen,  I  have  often  been  heartily 
ashamed  ;  and  if  there  be  a  point  on  which  I  have  really  been  at 
a  loss  in  this  discussion,  it  is  to  reconcile  these  two  proverbs  of 
Solomon  (in  my  replies  to  Mr.  Hughes's  abundantly  coarse  and 
virulent  abuse),  viz.  "  Ansiver  not  a  fool  according  to  his  folly, 
lest  thou  also  be  like  unto  Idm.  Answer  a  fool  according  to  his 
folly,  lest  he  be  ivise  in  his  own  conceit.''''  (1)  I  have  surely  failed 
of  preventing  the  latter  evil,  as  all  the  gentleman  says  of  himself 
will  readily  attest ;  and  I  fear  at  each  step  lest  in  seeking  to  cor- 
rect the  latter  I  should  incur  the  former.  If  the  gentleman  will 
give  me  a  good  example,  or  in  my  despair  of  that  a  good  interpre- 
tation of  this  difficult  duty,  I  will  follow  the  one  and  adopt  the 
other,  as  a  sincere  disciple  quoad  hoc. 

The  exultation  of  the  gentleman,  that  my  reply  to  his  last  speech 
contained  no  notice  of  his  reasonings  and  facts^  is  a  fit  illustration 
of  what  I  have  just  said.  If  I  had  gone  once  more  over  the  re- 
peated replies  to  his  stale  arguments,  if  such  they  may  be  called, 
he  would  have  said  "  chopt  straw" — a  very  pastoral  and  fre- 
quent figure  with  our  gentle  shepherd.  I  forbore  to  reiterate.  He 
cries  out  that  I  concede  every  thing.  The  argument  from  "  de- 
crees of  God r^  The  ^'monuments  of  idolatry.''''  They  have 
'^  perished  in  the  using.^'  The  witch-stories  of  New  England! 
Do  they  prove  that  the  doctrines  of  Presbyterians  are  opposed  to 
liberty  ?  I  might  have  filled  pages  in  reply  with  the  incantations 
of  papal  baptism,  or  the  hocus  pocus  and  legerdemain  of  priestly 
transubstantiation,  in  which  witch-craft  and  jugglery  are  en- 
throned on  the  sacraments  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  he  who  rejects 
then),  dies  the  death,  if  popery  be  true. 

And  then  as  to  the  persecutions  of  European  Presbyterians,  I 
have  oivned  that  they  did  in  a  degree  practice  thein ;  and  that 
they  ivere  to  be  condemtied — and  1  united  with  the  gentleman  to 
C07idemn  them.  I  have  gone  farther,  I  have  said  again  and  again 
that  almost  the  whole  Christian  world  had  gone  astray  on  the  sub- 
ject of  civil  and  especially  of  religious  liberty  ;  in  persecuting  each 
other;  in  establishing  religion  as  a  part  of  the  civil  code  ;  by  in- 
tolerance;   and    mutual    oppression:     but   that    American    Pro- 

^1)  Proverbs,  xxvi.  4,5. 


467 

testants  have  adopted  a  far  different  system;  and  among  them, 
Prcshifferians,  the  objects  of  Ids  malignant  attacks.  But  lie  says, 
owning  that  we  have  changed,  you  were  forced  to  do  it  by  the 
American  Revohitioii.  Well,  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  such  was  the  cause.  Here  however  is  the  excellent  ejffect. 
Now  the  Church  of  Rome^r*^  persecuted  ;  and  persecuted  mos^; 
she  first  united  church  and  state — she  first  made  heresy  a  civil 
offence — she  still  upholds  the  union  of  church  and  state,  wherever 
she  can,  as  in  Spain,  Portugal,  Austria,  South  America,  and  in 
Rome  herself,  where  the  head  of  the  church  is  head  of  the 
state,  ex  officio,  and  elected  to  it  by  priests  of  the  Church  of  Rome; 
and  none  but  a  priest  of  that  church,  elected  by  priests  of  that 
church,  can  be  Prince  of  Rome!  The  Church  of  Rome  says  she 
cannot  change,  and  will  7iot  change  ;  and  she  does  not  change  in 
this  respect.  Now  here  is  the  mighty  difference.  We  have 
changed;  not  merely  every  practice,  but  every  tenet,  that  allowed 
a  state  establishment  of  religion.  We  cannot  accept  an  establish- 
ment if  it  were  offered  to  us.  Our  avowed  published  doctrines  for- 
bid it;  and  though  the  gentleman  says  very  kindly  we  are  hypocrites 
in  all  this,  still  such  are  our  standards.  They  declare  "  that  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  protect  the  church  of  our  com- 
mon Lord,  without  giving  the  preference  to  any  denomination  of 
Christians  above  the  rest,  in  such  a  manner  that  all  ecclesiastical 
persons  lohatever,  shall  enjoy  the  full,  free,  and  unquestioned 
liberty  of  discharging  every  part  of  their  sacred  functions,  with- 
out violence  or  dangers."  (1)  Now  I  have  often  called,  and  called 
in  vain  for  one  such  sentence  in  the  voluminous  standards  of 
Rome.  So  far  from  this,  her  Catechism,  binding  on  all  the  faith- 
ful, says,  "  Yet  it  is  not  to  be  denied  but  that  they  [heretics  and 
schismatics]  are  in  the  poiver  of  the  church,  as  those  loho  may  be 
judged  by  her,  punished  and  condemned  ivith  an  anathema ;^^ 
and  they  are  compared  to  "  deserters  from  an  army.^^  Chap.  x. 
§  9.  Here  is  direct  and  universal  dominion  claimed  over  all 
*'  heretics  and  schismatics,"  as  all  we  Protestants  are  in  Rome's 
view.  And  again,  "  But  of  them  who  obeyed  not  the  priests,  it  is 
written,  '  He  that  ivill  be  proud,  and  refuse  to  obey  the  command- 
ment of  the  priest,  who  ministereth  at  that  time  to  the  Lord  thy 
God,  by  the  decree  of  the  Judge  that  man  shall  die'  "  (2) — This 
is  on  the  5th  commandment,  §  20.,  in  answer  to  the  question, 
"  With  what  punishment  shall  they  be  visited  who  break  this 
commandment?"  Here  the  priesthood  is  enthroned  by  the  standards 
of  the  Roman  Church  in  supreme  dominion  over  life  and  death 
itself,  and  the  adduced  authority  of  the  word  of  God  is  given 
in  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  \\\e  pricsfs  power.  Here  we  see  the 
true  contrast  between  our  standards  and  those  of  Rome. 

(1)  Confession  of  Faith,  c.  xxii.  0  3. 

(2)  Deuteronomy  xvii.  12. 


468 

But  still  more;  our  standards  say,  "God  alone  is  the  Lord  of 
conscience  : — the  rights  of  private  judgment  in  all  matters  that 
repect  religion  are  universal  and  unalienable  :  they  (Presbyterians) 
do  not  even  wish  to  see  any  religious  constitution  aided  by  the  civil 
power,  farther  than  may  be  necessary  for  protection  and  security, 
and  at  the  same  time  be  equal  and  common  to  all  others."  (1) 
Now  if  Mr.  Hughes  will  show  me  this  same  principle  in  any  part 
of  his  standards,  I  will  give  up  the  question.  Has  your  church  in 
any  of  her  standards,  ever  avowed  it?  Does  not  that  very  Pope 
to  whom  Mr.  Hughes  is  bound  by  ?i  feudal  oath,  and  who  is  head 
of  tlie  Catholic  Church  now  while  T  speak,  by  force  of  arms  sit  a 
king  over  millions  of  men,  and  support  (by  the  spiritual  authority, 
and  temporal,  blended  m  his  own  person)  a  religious  establishment? 
And  does  the  Pope  violate  any  one  doctrine  of  popery  in  doing  all 
this?  Not  one  !  But  a  religion  which  can  receive  or  tolerate  such 
an  establishment,  is  opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and 
treads  both  in  the  dust.  This  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  does  ; 
and  this  the  Presbyterian  religion  cannot  receive  or  tolerate. 
Here  is  a  fair  and  direct  contrast.  Let  the  gentleman  reply.  To 
accept  an  establishment  we  must  change:  to  reject  it,  Catholicity 
must  change.  Is  it  not  so?  It  must  be  seen  then  very  clearly  how 
little  I  have  to  do  with  the  Presbyterians  of  Holland,  or  any  others, 
in  this  question,  save  American  Presbyterians ;  and  how  much  on 
the  contrary,  in  an  unchanged  church,  Mr.  H.  has  to  do  with  the 
popery  of  Europe  and  Rome,  which  is  one  tvith  his  popery  in  all 
respects.  This  unchangeable  unity  is  thus  expressed  by  Francis 
Plowden,  Esq.,  a  champion  of  Romanism.  "  If  any  one  says  or 
pretends  to  insinuate,  that  modern  Catholics  differ  in  one  iota 
from  their  predecessors,  he  is  either  deceived  himself,  or  he  wishes 
to  deceive  others — Semper  eadem  (always  the  same)  is  not  less 
emphatically  descriptive  of  our  religion,  than  oi  our  jurisprudence.^^ 
No!  always  the  same  !  The  same  in  the  twelfth  and  in  the  nine- 
teenth century  !  The  same  in  Rome  and  America!  Here  again 
we  call  on  the  gentleman  to  say,  does  his  religion ybr^zVZ  an  esta- 
blishment? Has  it  not  an  establishment  now  at  Rome,  in  the  per- 
son of  the  head  of  his  church?  Then  it  might  without  a  change 
in  an  iota  have  one  here,  if  it  could,  if  it  dare  !  Then  it  is  op- 
posed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty  ! 

In  the  progress  of  my  arguments  in  the  affirmative,  I  entered 
the  INTERIOR  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  proved  that  she  op- 
pressed he^  own  subjects,  as  well  ?i^ persecuted  ''the  heretics  and 
schismatics  who  were  deserters^''  and  without  her  communion. 

It  will  be  directly  in  place  to  revert  to  the  points  then  stated, 
and  contrast  the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  with  those 
of  Rome,  under  the  respective  heads. 


(1)  Form  t)f(iovf'rnnient.  b.  i.  c.  i.  ^^. 


469 

1st.  As  TO  Baptism.     What  do  the  standards  of  the  Church  of 

Rome  say  ? 

It  was  proved  from  the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  on  the 
first  night,  that/o/xe  is  to  be  applied  to  compel  children  baptized 
in  their  infancy  to  lead  Christian  lives  ivhen  they  grow  up.  This 
was  further  proved  by  the  comments  of  standard  writers,  though 
(of  course)  f/ewiW  by  Mr.  Hughes.  For  example  Dens's  Theology, 
adopted  formally  by  the  Catholic  Prelates  of  Ireland,  since  1808, 
cited  in  my  third  speech,  first  night,  where  the  author  quotes  the 
very  proof  given  by  me,  and  uses  the  very  word  adopted  by  the 
Holy  Council,  to  prove  what  I  aflirm,  viz.  **  this  also  obtains  in 
the  case  of  those  who  have  been  baptized  in  their  infancy,  as  the 
Council  of  Trent  teaches,  sess.  7.  can.  14.  and  the  Fourth  Coun- 
cil of  Toledo,  canon  55,  that  even  those  who  by  force,  or  necessity, 
adopted  the  faith,  should  be  forced  (cogantur)  to  hold  it."  But 
Mr.  Hughes  denied  that  this  word  in  the  use  of  the  infallible  coun- 
cil, meant  any  thing  but  spiritual  force.  Dens,  however,  is  more 
honest,  for  he  says,  "  Unbelievers  ivho  have  been  baptized,  as  here- 
tics, and  apostates  generally ,  and  also  baptized  schismatics,  can  be 
compelled  by  corporal  punishment  to  return  to  the  Catholic  faith, 
and  the  unity  of  the  Church.'''' 

*'  The  reason  is  that  they  by  baptism  are  made  subjects  of  the 
church,  and  therefore  the  church  has  jurisdiction  over  them,  and 
the  power  of  compelling  them  by  the  ordained  means  to  obedience, 
to  fulfil  the  obligations  contracted  in  their  baptism."  I  must  say 
again,  here  is  an  honest  Roman  I  Let  those  believe  Mr.  Hughes's 
denial  who  are  ignorant  of  the  force  of  language,  and  the  history 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  of  his  motives  to  cover  up  and  io  for- 
get in  this  free  land,  and  enquiring  age.  The  Rev.  Blanco 
White,  once  a  priest  of  the  "  Catholic"  Church  in  Spain,  now  a 
member  of  the  Episcopal  Church  of  Great  Britain,  calls  bap- 
tism in  the  Church  of  Rome,  "  an  indelible  brand  of  sla- 
very." 

Now  let  us  turn  to  this  sacrament  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  I 
invite  the  gentleman's  scrutiny.  It  will  repay  our  search ;  it  will  fur- 
nish the  contrast  in  strong  relief.  Here  amidst  our  institutions,  sa- 
craments, and  doctrines,  is  the  place  to  find  our  views  of  religious 
liberty.  Why  does  the  gentleman  goto  the  Netherlands,  when  here 
are  our  standards,  almost  untouched  ?  Two  points  have  been 
tortured,  and  repeated  twelve  or  thirteen  times  to  make  them  speak 
against  liberty — but  in  vain.  Here  is  the  volume,  replete  with  a 
whole  .system  of  doctrine!  Why  does  he  shun  its  hundreds  of  pages 
crowded  with  doctrines  proved  by  appeals  to  the  word  of  God,  not 
by  Nightingale  or  Brandt,  but  by  Paul  and  Matthew  and  James 
and  John,  and  by  their  and  our  Lord !  Now  on  the  sacrament  of 
baptism  let  him  turn  over  these  pages  and  show  me  one  word  like 
force,  and  I  will  yield  up  the  question  in  debate.  In  the  9th  chap. 
Directory  for  Worship,  is  this  section,  which  is  so   strongly  in 


470 

contrast  with  the  papal  system  6n  the  same  subject,  that  it  shall 
speak  for  itself.  "  Children  born  within  the  pale  of  the  visible 
church  and  dedicated  to  God  in  baptism  are  under  the  inspection 
and  government  of  the  church,  and  are  to  be  taught  to  read  and 
repeat  the  catechism,  the  apostle's  creed,  and  the  Lord's  prayer. 
They  are  to  be  taught  to  pray,  to  abhor  sin,  to  fear  God,  and  obey 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Ajid  when  they  come  to  years  of  discretion ^ 
if  they  he  free  from  scandal,  appear  sober  and  steady,  and  to  have 
sufficient  knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  they  ought  to  be 
informed  that  it  is  their  duty  and  their  privilege  to  coine  to  the 
Lord's  supper."  In  the  Papal  Church,  baptism,  which  is  a  brand 
of  slavery  for  life,  is  at  the  same  time  made  absolutely  necessary 
to  salvation ;  so  that  none  can  be  saved  without  it ;  no,  not  even 
the  dying  infant;  and  those  babes  who  die  without  it,  are  forever 
lost.  Thus  they  drive  men  into  slavery  by  the  fears  of  eternal 
damnation.  So  they  believe;  and  hence,  shocking  to  relate,  not 
only  are  nurses  and  physicians,  and  the  laity  at  large  authorised  to 
administer  this  sacrament,  but  if  a  mother  be  giving  birth  to  a  dy- 
ing infant,  \\iG  priest  will  interpose  to  baptize  the  babe  amidst  the 
awful  and,  to  such  men,  unapproachable  scenes  of  parturition,  and 
hold  the  mother  suspended  between  life  and  death,  in  order  to 
administer  this  popish  rite  and  carry  out  this  shocking  doctrine. 
The  gentleman  may  affect  to  be  horrified  by  the  allusion.  I  put 
him  on  his  honour  to  deny  or  confess,  1st,  Whether  such  be  not  the 
literal  fact?  2d,  Whether  he  has  not  himself  been  an  actor  in 
such  scenes?  And  now  let  him  deny  it  in  the  face  of  the  parties 
in  this  community  who  may  test  the  truth  of  the  statement,  by  an 
appeal  to  their  own  memories  ! 

In  contrast  with  all  this,  our  standards  say,  (1)  "  Although  it 
be  a  great  sin  to  contemn  or  neglect  this  ordinance,  yet  grace  and 
salvation  are  not  so  inseparably  annexed  unto  it,  that  no  person 
can  be  regenerated  or  saved  without  it ;  or  that  all  that  are  bap- 
tized are  undoubtedly  regenerated."  We  drive  no  man  to  it.  We 
bind  no  man  forcibly  by  it.  We  impair  not  human  liberty,  or  di- 
vine truth  by  our  doctrine,  discipline,  or  practice. 

2d.  We  showed  at  large  that  auricular  confession,  which  is 
required  in  the  Roman  Church,  in  order  to  scdvation,  is  in  the 
highest  sense  an  invasion  of  personal  liberty;  and  besides  being 
unspeakably  corrupting  to  ihe  priest,  and  absolutely  destructive  of 
good  morals  among  multitudes  of  the  people,  endangers  the  safety 
of  states,  putting  alike  the  rulers  and  the  subjects  in  the  power  of 
the  priesthood.  By  this  system  of  (as  it  were)  omnipresent,  and 
all-knowing  espionage,  the  priests  ever  have  ruled,  and  while  it 
prevails  ever  ivill  rule  the  state,  and  corrupt  the  laity.  They  know 
every  man's,  every  woman's,  every  ruler's  secrets.  The  directory 
for  self-examination  in  the  Book  of  Devotion  put  forth  under  the 
sanction  of  the  Catholic  priesthood  of  America,  and  now  in  use  in 

(J^  Coil.  Faith,  chap,  xxviii  »i\  .5. 


471 

this  city,  is  enough  of  itself  forever  to  ruin  the  system  of  which  it 
is  a  part  in  the  eyes  of  the  American  people.  And  the  decrees  on 
confession  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  require  all  the  circumstances 
and  particulars  of  sins  to  be  laid  open  to  the  priest.  Hence  the 
horrible  Spanish  book  which  I  exhibited  to  the  audience,  asks 
females  whether  they  have  criminal  attachments  to  any  of  the 
priests?  and  if  so,  to  which  of  the  priests?  And  what  if  she 
should  reply — to  you  ? 

If  incessant  and  unspeakable  evils  do  not  occur,  it  is  a  standing 
miracle.  History  shows  that  this  papal  sacrament  is  a  sink  of 
debauchery  ;  and  destructive  of  all  sorts  oi  human  liberty. 

Now  here  is  a  point  o^  decisive  contrast.  We  ask  the  gentleman 
to  show  us  any  thing  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  at  all  corres- 
ponding to  this  enormous  evil.  Show  me  the  confessional ;  show 
me  this  fearful  police  over  men's  souls ;  show  me  hundreds  of 
priests  who  know  every  man's,  woman's,  child's  secrets,  and  can 
act  accordingly ;  can  at  a  glance  look  through  and  through  the 
wants,  lusts,  plans,  desires,  resources,  of  a  whole  community  ; 
show  me  these  things  in  any  Presbyterian  or  any  Protestant 
Church. 

3d.  I  showed  how  the  Church  of  Rome  had  interferred  directly 
with  the  liberty  of  they;re5S,  the  liberty  of  buying  and  reading, 
and  the  liberty  of  thought.  This  was  done  on  system;  by  general 
councils;  and  is  extended  even  to  the  rule  of  faith  and  the  Word 
of  God.  The  infallible  Council  of  Trent  had  by  its  constituted 
organ  denounced  so  many  books,  and  among  them  the  word  of 
God  in  the  vernacular  tongues  of  the  nations  (without  a  written 
permission  to  read  it),  that  the  mere  list  of  names  filled  a  volume, 
which  I  exhibited  to  the  society  !  That  another  large  volume  was 
filled  with  a  list  of  erasures  and  expurgations  of  books,  especially 
those  which  have  been  written  since  the  Reformation,  and  that  the 
present  reigning  pope  denounces  the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  the 
freedom  of  religion. 

Now  will  the  gentleman  show  me  any  such  feature  in  the  Pres- 
byterian or  the  Protestant  Churches  of  the  United  States?  He  has 
often  charged  Protestantism  with  variations,  and  our  rule  of  faith 
with  defects  and  various  evils,  but  never  with  oppressing  the  con- 
science, restricting  the  freedom  of  the  mind,  staying  the  right  of 
private  judgment,  laying  its  rude  hand  on  the  press,  and  even  on 
the  free  use  of  the  word  of  God.  It  is  true,  he  has  abused  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia  for  suspending  Mr.  Barnes,  and  tried  to 
flatter  the  prejudices  of  those  who  think  Mr.  Barnes  was  wronged. 
But  will  he  please  to  show  us  the  Presbyterian  act,  forbidding  any 
man  to  print,  sell,  or  read  Mr.  Barnes'  work  under  pain  of  fines, 
loss  of  the  edition,  and  the  discipline  of  the  church  in  its  severest 
forms?  'The  act  denounced  the  errors  of  the  book,  and  applied 
ecclesiastical  censure  to  the  author.  But  how  was  it  with  Huss, 
Jerome  of  Prague,  John  Rodgers,  and  the  immense  multitude  of 


472 

the  martyrs  of  the  truth  butchered  by  the  Church  of  Rome?  The 
entire  discussion  of  the  rule  of  faith  in  our  late  controversy,  on 
the  part  of  Mr.  Hughes,  went  to  show  the  consolidated  character 
of  his  church;  its  full  and  formal  unity  every  ichcre  and  always; 
and  the  uniformity  of  its  doctrines,  the  perfection  of  its  rule  in 
producing  uniformity,  the  binding  authority  of  that  rule,  &c.  &c., 
and  in  contrast  with  it  the  utter  and  hopeless  division  of  Protes- 
tants ;  the  number  of  their  sects  and  parties — even  the  thou- 
sand and  one;  the  varieties  of  their  opinions  on  every  possible  sub- 
ject touching  the  revelation  of  God ;  and  in  a  word  the  hopeless 
distractions  and  iWss'xm'xWiwdesoi protestantism.  Noivihe  gentleman 
sees  what  the  drift  of  his  reasoning  was  then.  But  he  flinches 
too  late.  We  remember,  though  he  ivishcs  us  to  forget,  that  by  his 
own  showing  his  is  the  only  church  in  America  in  which  perfect 
uniformity  prevails  ;  and  whose  members  all  speak  one  language 
and  breathe  one  spirit.  The  agitated  and  heterogeneous  mass  of 
protestantism  can  never  feel,  think,  or  act  together  ;  though  each 
of  the  thousand  and  one  sects  were  ever  so  well  disposed  to  govern 
the  nation.  But  let  Papists  once  prevail;  let  their  yearly  acces- 
sions from  abroad  raise  them  to  a  majority  ;  and  let  them  play  off 
the  Protestants  one  party  against  another^  so  as  to  divide  and 
rule  them,  and  where,  where  on  the  gentleman''s  own  shoiving, 
were  the  security  of  our  freedom  ?  The  majority  has  a  right  to 
rule,  though  it  be  to  establish  popery !  And  a  papal  majority  never 
divides,  changes,  or  recedes. 

Such  is  the  operation  of  the  ''  Catholic  rule  of  faith."  Whereas 
the  Presbyterian  and  Protestant  rule,  even  "  the  Bible''  in  the 
hands  of  the  people,  is  the  great  preservative  agaiiist  jmestcrcft 
and  fatal  consolidatioyi.  We  beg  the  gentleman  to  examine  this 
contrast  of  his  own  sketching,  and  report  to  us,  in  reply. 

4lh.  In  nothing  does  this  contrast  appear  more  striking,  than 
on  the  subject,  or  as  Mr.  Hughes  would  say,  the  sacrament  of 
marriage. 

With  American  Protestants,  including  Presbyterians,  this  is  no 
sacrament ;  but  a  divine  institution  coeval  with  the  creation  of 
man.  It  is  an  institution,  accompanied  by  divine  sanctions;  but 
not  peculiar  to  the  church.  Our  standards  say,  (1)  "  It  is  proper 
that  every  commonwealth,  for  the  good  of  society,  make  laws  to 
regulate  marriage ;  which  cdl  citizens  are  bound  to  obey.""  With 
us  a  civil  magistrate  may  solemnize  marriage,  and  the  civil  law  has 
certain  important  relations  to  the  institution. 

But  how  is  it  in  the  Church  of  Rome?  It  is  enthroned  as  a 
sacrament,  under  the  exclusive  regulation  of  the  priesthood  ;  and 
no  man  can  marry  without  his  act,  and  "  intention,'''  and  interpo- 
sition; and  unless  his  m/en^to?i  be  right  when  he  officiates,  the 
solemnization  is  void,  and  the  contract  void,  and  the  issue  illegiti- 

(\)  Directory  for  Worship,  chap.  ii.  p.  441. 


473 

mate,  and  the  seed  of  all  persons  not  married  by  a  Roman  priest 
is  illegitimate  ;  and  a  Roman  priest  is  forbidden  to  marry  those 
who  are  not  baptized  persons.  It  is  indeed  expressly  said,  (1) 
"  without  the  presence  of  the  parish  priest,  or  some  other  priest 
commissioned  by  him,  or  by  the  ordinary,  and  that  of  tivo  or  three 
witnesses,  there  can  be  no  marriage^  In  a  word,  under  the 
Gospel,  none  but  Catholic  priests  can  marry.  Hence  this  great 
civil  right  being  tortured  into  a  sacrament,  and  subordinated  to 
the  church,  none  can  marry  without  her  consent  and  act ;  and 
she  can  dispense  even  to  the  second  degree,  so  as  to  allow  brother 
and  sister  to  marry,  for  reasons  of  state ;  or  she  can  put  even 
barriers  in  the  way  which  none  dare  to  pass  over.  Here  is  sla- 
very. Here  is  making  matrimony,  as  well  as  life's  opening,  and 
life's  close,  and  all  the  way  through  life,  a  sort  of  fluent  sacra- 
ment, so  that  one  is  dependent  on  the  priest  for  every  thing, 
great,  good,  and  to  be  desired,  now  or  forever.  They  keep  tJie 
keys  of  the  treasury,  and  of  life  and  of  death.  They  keep  the 
great  seals  ;  this  Cerberus  must  have  his  sop  from  every  traveller 
into,  or  through,  or  out  of  the  world. 

There  is  another  aspect  of  this  subject  which  has  very  special 
interest,  and  is  little  thought  of  in  our  country.  It  is  very  ably 
presented  in  the  following  paper  which  I  have  lately  met  with, 
published  in  the  heart  of  Pennsylvania,  and  which  I  desire  to  pre- 
sent for  the  gentleman's  special  consideration,  adding  that  I  have 
the  work  in  my  possession  from  which  the  writer  quotes. 

"An  opinion  prevails  extensively  that  a  tnan's  sentiments  and 
professions  upon  the  subject  of  religion  should  not  be  made  a  mat- 
ter of  objection  against  his  elevation  to  office.  It  is  undoubtedly 
a  very  delicate  subject — and  if  such  objections  should  come  in 
vogue  at  all,  it  would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  restrain 
them  within  proper  bounds.  Yet  every  voter  at  the  polls  must 
and  will  act  upon  such  motives  as  seem  best  to  him,  and  hence  it 
is  that  the  public  press  has  a  most  weighty  and  responsible  duty 
to  perform,  in  conveying  to  the  citizens  at  large  correct  impres- 
sions upon  all  topics  connected  with  our  forms  of  governments. 

'*  The  opinion  to  which  we  have  reference  is  a  deduction  from 
the  grand  principles  of  Protestantism — namely,  that  all  men  have 
a  right  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  con- 
sciences. This  is  certainly  true ;  and  the  Roman  Catholic  has 
as  much  right  to  worship  God  in  his  way  as  any  of  the  various 
sects  of  Protestants  have  to  worship  in  their  way.  No  man  can 
rightfully  be  coerced  by  human  law,  in  matters  of  conscience, 
whether  he  be  a  Protestant,  Catholic,  Jew,  Mahometan  or  Pagan. 
The  only  power  which  can  be  lawfully  brought  to  bear  upon  him, 
is  the  power  of  the  word  or  the  power  of  persuasion.  This  is  Pro- 

(1)  See  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  p.  313. 
60 


474 

testantism.  It  forms  the  only  religious  article  in  the  constitution, 
and  no  man  who  loves  his  country  can  wish  to  expunge  it  from 
our  political  or  religious  creed.  But  does  it  follow  from  this,  that 
a  man's  opinions  are  of  no  consequence  to  the  public?  Is  it  not 
important  that  sound  and  just  opinions  upon  all  subjects  touching 
our  social  condition,  should  be  entertained  by  every  citizen,  and 
especially  by  those  citizens  who  aspire  to  places  of  trust?  Does 
it  follow  because  one  man  has  not  the  right  to  persecute  another 
for  his  opinions,  that  he  is  in  duty  bound  to  take  no  note  of  them 
at  the  ballot  box?  To  a  certain  extent  our  constitution  does  take 
notice  of  religious  opinions,  notwithstanding  it  declares  the  right 
of  private  opinion.  There  is  a  provision  which  declares  that  no 
man  who  believes  in  the  being  of  a  God,  and  a  state  of  future  re- 
wards and  punishments  shall  be  disqualified  from  holding  any 
office  of  trust  on  account  of  his  religious  sentiments.  Now  the 
meaning  of  this  is,  that  although  every  man  has  a  right  to  enjoy 
his  opinions,  yet  certain  opinions  are  necessary  to  make  him  wor- 
thy of  high  public  trusts.  In  practice  too,  it  is  not  unfrequent 
that  candidates  for  public  office  are  called  upon  for  their  senti- 
ments upon  political  subjects.  This  proceeds  upon  the  ground  that 
their  principles,  which  are  comparatively  a  matter  of  no  importance 
in  private  life,  become  a  matter  of  public  concern  when  they  are 
candidates  for  places  of  public  trust.  It  is  generally  supposed, 
however,  that  the  religious  belief  and  principles  of  a  man,  (except- 
ing certain  fundamental  articles  indispensable  to  the  very  idea  of 
that  accountability  which  is  implied  by  an  oath,)  can  have  no 
very  close  connection  with  temporal  and  secular  trusts  and  duties, 
and  no  instance  has  occurred  in  this  country  in  which  a  man's  re- 
ligiou<i  creed  has  been  the  subject  of  direct  and  public  enquiry. 
This  opinion  is  more  correct  in  relation  to  any  of  the  Protestant 
sects  than  to  the  Roman  Catholics.  In  that  system  much  passes 
under  the  name  of  religion  which  mainly  concerns  the  temporal 
and  political  condition  of  men.  Our  people  are  not  generally  aware 
of  this,  because  they  are  not  attentive  to  follow  out  principles  to 
their  consequences.  Take  for  example  the  different  views  enter- 
tained by  Protestants  and  Catholics  upon  the  subject  of  "  MAR- 
RIAGE." The  former  hold  it  to  be  a  civil  conU'act,  but  of  a  very 
peculiar  and  solemn  character  ;  the  latter  hold  it  to  be  a  sacra- 
ment. Now  most  persons  among  us  suppose  this  to  be  a  mere 
theological  difference,  depending  upon  metaphysical  or  scholastic 
distinction,  and  one  which  may  be  disregarded  by  the  politician, 
because  it  can  have  no  political  results.  No  doubt,  many  among 
us  would  think  it  a  very  idle  objection  to  a  candidate  for  public 
office,  that  he  believes  marriage  to  be  a  sacrament,  which  can 
rightly  be  performed  only  by  a  priest  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  What  more  idle,  they  would  say,  than  to  make  such  a 
dogma,  a  turning  point  in  deciding  upon  the  fitness  of  a  candidate 
for  office?     It  is  not  however  a  difference  of  opinion,  so  entirely 


475 

destitute   of  consequences,    as    will   appear    from    the    following 
facts. 

**  During  the  ascendancy  of  Napoleon  Buonaparte  in  France,  the 
Catholic  clergy,  who  had  been  ejected  from  the  sees  and  cures  by 
the  revolution,  were  re-established  under  certain  conditions  by  a 
treaty  (or  concordat,  as  it  was  called)  between  the  Pope  and  the 
French  government.  This  treaty  was  published  in  1802.  Pius 
VII.,  then  Pope,  was  for  a  time  very  grateful.  He  declared  pub- 
licly, that  next  to  God,  he  Owed  every  thing  to  Napoleon  Buona- 
parte ;  but  shortly  afterwards  he  began  to  complain  of  certain  laws 
which  the  French  government  had  made,  and  among  others  the 
laws  relating  to  marriage.  In  1807  a  cardinal  was  sent  from 
Rome  to  Paris,  to  negociate  about  these  difficulties.  Afterwards 
discussions  were  continued  at  Rome,  in  which  the  obstinacy  of 
the  Court  of  Rome,  in  considering  as  null  and  void  all  marriages 
solemnized  according  to  the  civil  code,  was  signally  manifested. 
The  doctrine  of  the  pope  and  of  his  clergy  was,  that  no  real  or 
valid  marriage  co?^W  exist  except  by  the  intervention  of  a  Catholic 
priest.  Still  the  French  code,  or  parts  of  it,  became  more  and  more 
extended  in  Europe,  and  was  introduced  into  different  countries  to 
a  greater  or  lesser  extent,  and  the  Court  of  Rome,  in  order  to 
counteract  the  effect  of  it,  despatched  instructions,  as  they  were 
called,  exhibiting  in  bold  relief  the  unsocial  and  immoral  doctrine 
of  that  church  upon  the  subject  of  marriage. 

"  The  following  are  extracts  from  a  letter  of  instruction  destined 
for  Poland,  no  longer  ago  than  1808,  where,  by  law,  an  attempt 
had  been  made  to  reconcile  the  sacramental  benediction,  (as  it 
was  called,)  with  the  civil  nature  of  the  marriage  contract. 

"  '  Such  a  transaction,  (says  the  Pope's  letter)  proposed  by  a  Ca- 
tholic prelate  to  a  royal  minister,  upon  a  subject  so  sacred,  consi- 
dered in  its  principles,  in  its  consequences,  in  its  whole  tenor, 
leads  directly  to  the  result,  which  modern  sectaries  have  proposed 
to  themselves,  namely  to  make  Catholics  and  bishops,  and  even 
the  Pope  himself,  confess  that  the  power  of  governing  men  is  in- 
divisible. ********  For  a  Catholic  bishop  to 
acknowledge  in  Catholic  marriages,  civil  pui)lica(ions,  civil  con- 
tracts, civil  divorces,  civil  judgments  prescribed  by  the  civil  law, 
is  to  grant  to  the  prince  a  power  over  the  sacraments  and  over 
ecclesiastical  discipline.  It  is  to  admit  that  he  can  alter  the  form 
and  the  rites — can  derogate  from  the  canons — can  violate  ecclesi- 
astical liberty — can  trouble  consciences — that  he  has,  by  way  of 
consequence,  an  absolute  authority  over  things  and  causes  purely 
ecclesiastical — essentially  privileged,  and  dependent  on  the  power 
of  the  keys — which  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  he  can  put  his  hand 
to  the  censer  and  make  his  laws  prevail  over  the  laws  of  the 
church.  Either  the  bishop  should  have  disscmhled  and  tolerated 
a  disorder  imposed  by  irresistible  force,  or  if  he  would  say  any 
thing,  he  should  have  informed  the  royal  minister  that  the  regula- 


476 

tions  ot"  the  code,  so  far  as  they  respect  marriage,  cannot   be  ap- 
plied to  Catholic  marriages  in  Catholic  countries.' 

"  If  we  survey  the  history  of  nations,  we  shall  not  find  a  single 
example  of  a  Catholic  prince,  imposing  or  suffering  to  be  imposed 
on  his  subjects,  the  obligation  to  publish  and  declare  their  mar- 
riage, and  to  discuss  the  validity  or  nullity  of  it  before  the  judge  of 
the  district.  A  large  field  would  have  been  opened  for  the  bishop 
to  show  the  royal  minister  that  in  a  country  where  the  Catholic 
religion  is  that  of  the  state — in  a  country  governed  by  a  Catholic 
prince,  the  laws  of  the  civil  code  relative  to  marriage  cannot  be 
applied  to  Catholics,  nor  the  observation  of  them  be  required  with- 
out a  great  scandal — that  it  would  be  an  attempt,  unheard  of — and 
a  manifest  revolt,  against  the  laws  of  the  church — a  novelty  leading 
to  error  and  schism.  If  these  pastoral  remonstrances  had  proved 
useless,  the  bishops  should  have  committed  their  cause  and  that  of 
the  church  into  the  hands  of  God  and  continued  to  teach  well  the 
flock  committed  to  their  care.     ****** 

*'  1st.  That  there  is  no  marriage,  if  it  is  not  contracted  in  the 
form  which  the  church  has  established  to  render  it  valid. 

"  2d.  That  marriage  once  contracted  according  to  the  forms  of 
the  church,  there  is  no  power  on  earth  which  can  sunder  its  tie. 

"  3d.  That  it  remains  indissoluble  notwithstanding  adultery,  and 
the  inconveniences  of  cohabitation. 

"4th.  That  in  case  of  a  doubtful  marriage,  it  belongs  to  the 
church  alone  to  judge  of  its  validity  or  invalidity,  so  that  every 
other  judgment  emanating  from  any  other  power  whatever  is  in- 
competent and  incapable  of  authorizing  a  divorce  and  of  rendering 
it  lawful, 

"5th.  That  a  marriage  to  which  there  is  no  canonical  impedi- 
ment is  good  and  valid,  and  consequently  is  indissoluble, zohat ever 
impediment  the  lay  poiver  may  imduhj  impose  ivithout  the  con- 
sent and  approbation  of  the  Universal  Church  or  of  its  supreme 
head,  the  Roman  Pontiff. 

**  0th.  That  on  the  other  hand,  every  marriage  contracted  not- 
withstanding a  canonical  impediment — (though  abrogated  abu- 
sively by  the  sovereign)  ought  to  be  holden  as  entirely  null  and  of 
no  effect — and  that  every  Catholic  is  bound  in  conscience  to  re- 
gard such  a  marriage  as  nidi  until  it  shall  be  validated  by  a 
lawful  dispensation  granted  by  the  Churchy  if  indeed,  the  im- 
pediment which  renders  it  null  may  be  removed  by  a  dispen- 
sation. 

"  The  Bishop  of  Warsaw  had  said  that  the  regulations  of  the  code 
civil  relative  to  marriage  did  not  present  any  difficulty — that  they 
ordered  nothing  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God  and  of  the  church 
and  consequently  that  every  one  was  bound  to  conform  to  it.  In 
reply  to  this  judicious  reflection  the  Court  of  Rome  answered  in 
these  terms. 

"  *  Is  not  the  article  which  declares  that  persons  divorced  shall 


477 

not  intermarry  again,  opposed  to  the  laws  of  God  and  of  the 
church,  &c.  &c. — and  to  say  all  in  one  word,  is  it  not  an  offence 
to  God  and  to  the  church,  to  make  laws  which  subvert  ecclesias- 
tical discipline  in  a  matter  so  delicate?'  The  Court  of  Rome  then 
declares  that  it  is  an  error  to  regard  marriage  as  a  civil  contract, 
'  above  all  since  under  the  evangelical  law  it  has  been  elevated 
to  the  dignity  of  a  sacrament — and  has  thereby  become  a  sacred 
thing  independent,  as  respects  its  nature  and  validity,  of  every 
species  of  profane  law.  And  it  is  so  true  that  the  nature  and  va- 
lidity of  marriage,  particularly  under  the  gospel,  is  independent 
of  every  civil  contract  established  by  the  civil  laws,  that  the 
Council  of  Trent  declared  null  every  7narriage  contracted  tvith- 
out  the  solemn  forms  ivhich  it  prescribed,  and  this  the  Council 
could  not  have  done,  if  marriage  partook  of  the  nature  of  two 
contracts,  *  *  *  .  *  *  *  lohich  depend  upon  tioo  distinct 
powers — the  one  civil  and  dependant  on  the  civil  laivs  for  its 
validity — the  other  religious  and  dependant  o?i  the  laws  of  the 
church.' 

"  From  the  foregoing  extracts  the  reader  perceives  that  however 
he  may  regard  the  difference  between  the  doctrine  of  Protes- 
tants and  Catholics  on  the  subject  of  marriage,  the  Church  of 
Rome  holds  the  distinction  to  be  all  important.  Every  considerate 
man  will  admit,  that  of  all  contracts  marriage  is  the  strictest,  the 
most  necessary,  and  that  ivhich  commends  itself  most  seriously 
to  the  attention  of  the  civil poiver.  It  is  the  contract  which  more 
than  any  other  constitutes  and  perpetuates  society.  Upon  such  a 
subject  the  duties  of  the  Legislator  are  too  grave  to  be  surrendered 
to  a  foreign  priest — or  to  an  assembly  of  our  oicn  priests.  Yet 
every  devout  Catholic  holds  that  marriage  is  a  sacrament,  and  the 
foregoing  are  some  of  the  inferences  resulting  from  that  position. 

"  Here  then  is  one  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  a  man's 
religious  principles  may  affect  his  civil  conduct,  not  as  a  private 
citizen  merely,  but  as  a  legislator  and  as  a  public  officer.  A  man 
who  would  send  to  Home,  or  the  vicar- general  of  the  Pope  in  this 
country,  for  a  dispensation  from  a  canonical  impediment  to  mar- 
riage, does  so,  of  course,  under  the  belief  that  marriage  is  a  sa- 
crament and  not  a  civil  contract,  and  of  course,  that  his  marriage 
though  according  to  the  civil  law  would  icithout  a  dispensation 
be  null  and  his  issue  illegitimate.  If  he  would  not  do  so,  but 
rely  on  the  civil  power  to  declare  what  marriages  are  laivful,  he 
loould  be  deemed  a  schismatic  and  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical 
censure  and  excommunication.  The  question  may  now  be  put 
whether  a  man,  who  believes  in  the  papal  doctrine,  that  marriage 
is  a  sacrament,  is  not  by  his  own  conscience  disqualified  from 
holding  any  public  office  of  trust  in  a  Protestant  country?" 

There  is  one  respect  in  which  this  gentleman  excels  any  other 
I  have  ever  known. — It  is  in  making  something  of  nothing.  Ex 
nihilo  nihil  jit  can  no  longer  be  stated  by  philosophers  as  an  indis- 


478 

putable  axiom.  Not  the  spider  who  will  spin  out  his  interminable 
web  from  the  materials  furnished  by  one  poor  fly ;  not  the  lean 
liver  who  decocts  his  profuse  soups  of  bones  can  make  a  richer 
use  of  nothing  than  our  self-complacent,  unblushing  disciple  of 
Loyola.  Truly  sir,  I  admit  that  there  is  no  answering  "  these 
arguments^  He  may  weave  his  spider  web  and  wind  his  horn  of 
triumph,  and  still  his  speeches  must  be  una?isiverable,  while  there 
is  nothing  in  them  to  ansiver.  Such  are  his  first  pages  of  the  last 
speech.  As  might  have  been  expected,  his  declamation  is  not 
only  empty  hut  false.  Thus  he  says  the  Quakers  were  cropped  in 
England  by  "  Calvinists.'^  Now  does  he  mean  to  say  this  was 
by  Presbyterians  ?  Then  it  is  wholly,  wholly  false.  If  by  others, 
then  it  is  wholly  irrelevant.  His  want  of  candour  is  as  unwise  as 
it  is  unjust  and  unlovely.  Take  for  example  the  two  cases  of 
which  he  has  made  so  much,  as  given  by  Brandt.  Admit  it  all  lo 
be  true  !  as  well  as  the  cropping  of  the  poor  Quakers  ! — what  then  ? 
He  infers  that  Presbyterian  doctrine  is  persecuting  doctrine.  Let 
it  be  allowed  to  be  so.  1  turn  him  to  the  Catholic  Historian, 
Father  Paul,(l)  where  he  tells  us  that  "from  the  edict  of  Charles 
UNTIL  THE  TIME  OF  THE  PEACE,  (in  the  Very  same  land  where  the 
two  men  were  put  to  death,)  "there  were  hanged,  beheaded,  buried, 
and  burned  to  the  number  of  fifty  thousand  "  of  the  Prol  estan  ts  ! ! ! 
And  now  will  he  say  it  was  persecution  for  Presbyterians  to  put 
tivo  men  to  death,  and  no  persecution  for  Catholics  to  put  50,000? 
Truly  he  undervalues  the  lives  of  heretics  even  more  than  the  Pope 
his  master,  if  two  Catholics  outweigh  50,000  Presbyterians  !  Now 
will  he  say  it  was  only  discipline  to  slaughter  Protestants  but  doc- 
trine  to  kill  even  two  papists?  Grotius,  whom  Mr.  H.  has  often 
referred  to,  says  these  martyrs  to  liberty  and  truth  in  the  low  coun- 
tries amounted  to  100,000.  Yet,  after  all,  the  secret  sting  of  Pope- 
ry was  the  loss  of  the  nation,  and  its  full  final  identification  with 
the  Protestant  cause.  For  as  it  often  is,  persecution  made  the 
church  of  Christ  io  grow ;  in  spite  of  anti-christ  and  the  Man  of 
sin,  the  Reformation  reclaimed  Holland  from  papal  domination. 

The  malignity  of  the  last  speech  of  the  gentleman  is  so  great, 
that  I  can  only  explain  it  by  the  efficacy  of  my  illustrations  and  au- 
thorities. A  gentleman  and  a  Christian  cannot  answer  malignity 
any  more  than  a  logician  can  reply  to  gasconade  and  empty  de- 
clamation. Here  then  I  must  also  pass  by  the  spleen  and  abuse 
and  ill-bred  taunts  and  vulgarity  I  meet.  I  cannot  stoop  either 
to  gamble  with  the  gentleman  as  he  proposes.  I  know  Protestant 
money  is  popular  at  St.  John's  ;  and  that  Bishop  England  thinks 
well  of  a  game  of  cards,  as  Mr.  Hughes  does  of  a  wager.  When 
1  exhibited  Baronius,  to  the  confusion  of  his  audacious  misrepre- 
sentation in  the  late  controversy,  and  claimed  the  oflfered  $500 — 
how  did  he  meet  his  pledge  ?     The  self-confident  air  with  which 

(l)History  of  Council  of  Trent,  page  387,  book  v. 


479 

he  holds  forth  his  $100 — resembles  the  last  stake  of  a  desperate 
gamester.  But  while  I  cannot  gamble  even  with  a  priest  of  Rome, 
a  candidate  for  the  ring  and  staff,  lest  his  "  great  swelling  ivords 
should  deceive  the  unioary,"  I  will  give  him  some  distinct  exa7n- 
ples  from  the  catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  proof  of  the 
truth  of  my  proposition,  and  to  show  how  empty  and  uncandid  the 
gentleman's  grandiloquence  is.  The  proposal  was  this — "  But  I 
here  challenge  lUr.  Hughes  to  meet  vie  before  any  number  of  Latin 
scholars,  and  I  ivill  convict  this  shameful  edition"  (of  the  English 
translation  of  the  catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  printed  in 
this  country  and  approved  by  Mr.  Hughes,)  "of  twenty  deliberate 
and  glaring  frauds,  which  have  been  evidently  committed  with  de- 
sign." He  says  of  this  charge  :  "  I  'pronounce  it  utterly  untrue^ 
Now  for  the  proof  The  translator  says  in  his  preface,  "  the 
phraseology  of  the  work  is  consecrated  by  ecclesiastical  usage. 
Whilst,  therefore,  he  has  endeavoured  to  preserve  the  spirit,  he 
has  been  unwilling  to  lose  sight  of  the  letter — studious  to  avoid  a 
servile  exactness,  he  has  not  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  indulge  the 
freedom  of  paraphrase:  anxious  to  transfuse  into  the  copy  the 
spirit  of  the  original  he  has  been  no  less  anxious  to  render  it  an 
express  image  of  that  original  These  are  fair  promises ^  and 
pompous  pledges. 

The  first  step  of  the  learned  "  professor,"  (and  he  is  in  the  pa- 
pal college  of  Maynooth,  specially  dedicated  to  the  training  of  a 
priesthood)  is  wholly  to  omit  the  Pope's  Bull  which  accompanies 
the  original,  and  ushered  it  into  the  world.  The  reason  for  this  it 
is  not  hard  to  understand. 


I.  Example,  is  an  omission. 


Original  Latin. 
Nam  per  sacramenta 
solum  si  eorum  forma 
servatur  peccata  remitti 
possunt:  alitervero  nul- 
lum jus  a  peccatis  sol- 
vendi  ecclesiae  datum 
est:  ex  quo  sequitur 
turn  sacerdotes,  turn  sa- 
cramenta ad  peccata 
cnndonanda,  veluti  in- 
strumenta  valere,  qui- 
bus  Chrisliis  Dominus 
auclor  ipse,  et  largitor 
salulis,  remissionem 
peccatorum  et  justitiam 
in  nobis  efficit. 


Our  ^'holy^^  transla- 
tor gives  the  follow- 
ing only: — "  And  sins 
can  be  forgiven  only 
through  the  sacra- 
ments, when  duly 
administered.  The 
church  has  received 
no  power  otherwise  to 
remit  sin." 


A  full  translation: — 
By  the  sacraments  only, 
so  that  the  form  of 
them  be  kept,  sins  may 
be  forgiven;  but  other- 
wise there  is  no  power 
of  absolving  from  sin 
given  to  the  church; 
whence  it  follows  that 
the  priests,  as  well  as 
the  sacraments,  are  as  it 
ivere  instruments  to  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  by 
which  Christ  our  Lord, 
who  is  the  very  author 
and  giver  of  salvation, 
works  in  us  forgive- 
ness of  sins  and  right- 
eousness. 


480 

Here  all  that  part  in  italics  is  omitted.  Why  that  was  selected 
is  very  plain,  for  that  makes  the  priests  not  only  means  of  good, 
but  "  as  it  were  "  instruments  of  pardon  of  sin — a  sort  of  sacra- 
ments !  Such  profanity  he  might  well  be  ashamed  of;  yet  his 
shame  should  be  at  the  doctrine;  and  his  honour  and  honesty 
should  have  given  a  fair,  full  translation. {\) 


II.  Example^  is  an  interpolation. 


Original  Latin. 
Quod  quidem  non 
minus  vere  de  illo  etiam 
homine  sacerdos  pro- 
nunciat  qui  priusarden- 
tissima?  contrition  is  vi, 
accedente  tamen  con- 
fessionis  veto,  peccato- 
rum  veniam  adeo  conse- 
cutus  sit.  Adduntur 
prseterea  complures  pre- 
ces,  non  quidem  ad  for- 
mam  necessarige,  sed 
ut  ea  removeantur,  quae 
sacramenti  vim  et  effi- 
cientiam,  illius  culpa 
cui  administratur,  im- 
pedire  possent.(2) 


True  translation. 
This  (the  form  of 
absolution)  the  priest 
may  pronounce  no  less 
truly  concerning  that 
man  also,  who  by  vir- 
tue of  a  most  ardent 
contrition — yet  so  as 
that  he  has  the  wish  of 
confession — has  obtain- 
ed from  God  the  pardon 
of  his  sins.  Many 
prayers  also  accom- 
pany the  form,  not  be- 
cause they  are  deemed 
necessary,  but  in  order 
to  remove  every  obsta- 
cle which  the  un- 
worthiness  of  the  pen- 
itent may  oppose  to 
the  power  and  effica- 
cy of  the  sacrament. 


Donevan's  corruption  of 
the  text,  defended  by 
Mr.  Hughes. 
"  This  form  is  not  less 
true,  when  pronounced 
by  the  priest  over  him 
who  by  means  of  per- 
fect contrition  has  al- 
ready obtained  the  par- 
don of  his  sins.  Per- 
fect contrition  it  is  true 
reconciles  the  sinner  to 
God,  but  his  justifica- 
tion is  not  to  be  as- 
cribed to  perfect  con- 
trition alone,  indepen- 
dently of  the  desire 
which  it  includes  of  re- 
ceiving the  sacrament 
of  penance.  Many 
prayers  accompany  the 
form,  not  because  they 
are  deemed  necessary, 
but  in  order  to  remove 
e.very  obstacle  which 
the  unworthiness  of  the 
penitent  may  oppose  to 
the  efficacy  of  the  sa- 
crament. " 


Here  one  whole  sentence,  (that  in  italics,)  is  an  entire  forgery 
to  which  there  is  not  one  corresponding  word  in  the  original  Latin! 
This  is  adapting  the  system  to  the  latitude.  He  who  reads  this 
will  better  understand  what  I  said  in  my  last  speech  about  the  liber- 
ties taken  with  the  Fathers  and  the  Bible  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

III.  My  third  example  is  a  compound  of  several  kinds  of 
iniquities. — This  is  the  most  flagrant,  and  deliberate  act  of  fraud 
I  have   ever  seen  practised  on  any  author   living  or  dead.     The 

(1)  See  Donevan's  Translation,  108  page;  and  the  original  Latin,  p.  75,  $  6. 

(2)  See  Latin  edition,  p.  177.     English,  pages  24J — 2. 


181 


compilers  are  here  introducing  St.  Ambrose  as  authority  on  the 
question  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope.  They  extract  some  twelve 
lines  from  that  father,  and  then  proceed  to  add  their  own  docirine 
of  the  necessity  of  a  visible  head  to  the  church  on  earth.  This 
translator,  advocated  by  Mr.  Hughes  omits  every  word  of  Am- 
brose's extract ;  and,  retaining  his  name,  puts  the  language  of  the 
catechists  into  his  mouth,  and  makes  him  father  what  was  written 
many,  yes,  very  many  centuries  after  his  death,  and  lo,  he  speaks 
the  language  of  a  thorough-paced  papist!!! 


Original  Latin. 
Postremo  sanctus  Anibrosius  ait : 
*'  Magna  sunt  enim  Deimunera,  qui 
non  solum  nobis  quae  nostra  fuerant 
rcparavit,  verum  etiam  quas  sunt 
propria  concessit :  [deinde  paucis  in- 
terjectis  sequitur.]  Magna  autem 
Christi  gratia  qui  omnia  prope  voca- 
bula  sua  discipulis  ipsis  donavit." — 
[This  father  then  gives  quotations 
of  eight  or  nine  portions  of  the  Bi- 
ble, to  prove  the  above  proposition, 
viz :  that  our  Lord  bestowed  his 
titles  on  Iiis  disciples;  all  these  are 
suppressed  by  the  translator,  and 
the  following  words  put  into  his 
mouth.]  "  Si  quis  objiciat  eccle- 
siam  uno  capite  et  sponso  Jesu 
Christo  contentam  prgeterea  nullum 
requirere,  in  promptu  responsio  est, 

&.C Sic   ecclesiaB    quam 

ipse  intimo  spiritu  regit  hominem 
suae  potestatis  vicarium,  et  minis- 
trum  prsefecit,  nam  cum  visibilis 
ecclesia  visibili  capite  egeat  ita  sal- 
vator  noster  Petrum  universi  fidelium 
generis  caput  et  pastoreni  consti- 
tuit,"  &c. 


Translation  and  true  connexion. 
Lastly  St.  Ambrose  saith :  "  Great 
indeed  are  the  gifts  of  God,  who  not 
only  restored  to  us  what  had  been 
ours,  but  even  conferred  on  us  what 
was  peculiar  to  himself;  [then  after 
adding  a  few  things  he  proceeds.] 
How  great  was  the  grace  of  Christ 
ivho  bestowed  nearly  all  his  titles 
on  his  disciples.^'  [Here  the  quota- 
tions from  Scripture  are  introduced, 
and  the  extract  from  Ambrose 
CLOSES.  By  him  all  the  disci- 
ples OF  Christ  ari;  made  equal 
sharers  in  these  peculiar  and 
gracious  titles.  But  the  tran- 
slator suppresses  that  passage,  and 
puts  up  Peter  alone  as  bearing 
Christ's  titles.  This  is  base  fraud.] 
"If  any  should  object  that  the 
church  is  content  with  one  spouse 
and  one  head,  Jesus  Christ,  and 
requires  no  other,   the   answer  is 

obvious,  &c So  He, 

(Jesus)  has  placed  ovet  his  church 
which  he  governs  by  his  invisible 
spirit,  a  man  to  be  his  vicar,  and 
the  minister  of  his  power;  for  a  visi- 
ble church  requires  a  visible  head, 
and  therefore  does  our  Saviour  ap- 
point Peter  head  and  pastor  of  all 
the  faithful." 


By  the  above  fraud,  13  lines  of  Ambrose  are  expunged^  and 
12  /me.s  of  the  catechism  are  put  into  his  7nouth  and  reported  as 
his — being  entirely  different  words,  and  composed  1200  years 
after  Ambrose  died. 

A  glance  at  the  above  will  convince  any  honest  man  that  this  is 
base  work.  Now  I  gave  this  book,  only  as  one  of  many,  (in- 
cluding the  "  Catholic"  Fathers,  as  they  are  called,  and  the  word 
of  God  itself,)  in  which  frauds  had  been  committed  on  the  sacred- 
ness  of  the  press,  and  works  altered  by  omissions,  forgeries,  varia- 

61 


482 

lions,  and  false  connexions  of  terms — by  the  members  and  head 
of  the  Roman  Church.  Of  all  the  cases  given,  Mr.  Hughes  has 
noticed  this  alone.  And  now  I  ask  directly  whether  these  are 
frauds  or  not?  Does  Mr.  H.  any  longer  defend  this  translator? 
And  now  let  me  ask  Mr.  H.  to  lay  aside  the  Jesuit  for  once,  and 
meet  these  proofs;  and  as  he  says  my  proposition  about  this  trans- 
lation "is  untrue,^''  I  require  him  to  prove  it,  or  to  confess  that  he 
has  made  a  false  statement.  If  he  vindicates  the  translator,  or  if 
he  does  not  now  condemn  him  before  the  public,  he  becomes  the 
partaker  of  his  guilt ;  if  he  remains  silent,  it  will  be  a  confession 
of  guilt  and  confusion  loo.  When  he  shall  have  met  these  three 
examples,  like  an  honest  man,  then  we  will  produce  more,  and 
refer  the  ivhole  book  to  the  proper  arbitration. 

And  as  to  the  arbitration  of  all  undisputed  points,  1  shall  re- 
joice, at  the  close  of  this  discussion,  to  refer  all  the  points  as  to 
the  tneaning  of  ivords  in  the  dead  languages,  as  to  the  facts 
about  ivhich  we  are  at  issue  (or  may  be  before  the  debate  closes) 
lo  fit  referees.  And  among  other  things,  the  question  to  whom 
is  to  be  charged  the  failure  to  publish  the  report  of  the  stenogra- 
pher;  and  why  it  is  that  Mr.  Hughes  can  bet  hundreds  of  dollars, 
and  yet  at  no  Ume  pay  one  cent  toward  the  expences  of  the  report 
of  the  debate,  while  it  was  at  his  instance,  said  report  was  laid 
aside  ;  and  thus  the  means  of  paying  the  reporter  for  the  time, 
made  unavailing ! ! 

If  the  gentleman  will  look  into  the  new  edition  of  Buck's  The- 
ological Dictionary,  at  the  close  of  the  book,  he  will  find  an  arti- 
cle on  "  the  Baptists,"  drawn  up  by  a  distinguished  clergyman  of 
this  city  belonging  to  that  denomination,  in  which  if  he  has  any 
desire  to  correct  his  false  statements  about  the  proportion  of  Cal- 
vimsts,  he  will  find  room  to  regret  his  rudeness,  and  to  be  ashamed 
of  his  ignorance;  or  if  he  requires  it,  I  will  cite  it  in  the  next 
reply. 

As  to  the  article  in  the  "  Catholic  Telegraph,"  the  ''intention,'' 
as  a  Catholic  priest  ought  to  know,  determines  the  whole  question. 
Was  not  that  intention  to  favour  the  sentiment  of  the  article  which 
denounced  our  American  system  as  a  failure?  If  so,  then  my  use 
of  it  was  the  fair  and  the  only  fair  one.  Mr.  Hughes  denies  that 
such  was  his  intention,  on  him  then  lies  the  duty  o^ proof .  He  is 
well  aware  he  cannot  make  it  good.  Hence  his  silence  as  \.o  proof 
and  his  impertinence  as  to  abuse. 

"  The  doom"  of  popery  is  not  pronounced  by  me,  but  by  God, 
who  hath  said  prophetically,  "Babylon  has  fallen,  has  fallen;" 
and  "that  man  of  sin,  whose  coming  is  after  the  working  of  satan 
with  all  power,  and  signs,  and  lying  wonders,  and  with  all  de- 
ceivableness  of  unrighteousness ;  whom  the  Lord  shall  consume 
with  the  spirit  of  his  mouth,  and  destroy  ivith  the  brightness  of  his 
coming.^'  This  is  the  doom  I  speak  of.  It  has  been  working  since 
the  morning  star  of  the   reformation   arose.      It  is  working  in 


483 

Spain,  in  Portugal,  in  France,  even  in  Ronne;  and  its  signs  are 
seen  in  the  spread  of  the  gospel,  in  the  progress  of  liberty  and 
truth,  and  in  the  desperation  of  the  disciples  and  defenders  of 
Rome,  "  whose  torath  is  great  because  they  see  that  their  time  is 
short." 

When  the  gentleman  charges  me  with  suppressing  a  part  of 
a  canon,  "  after  Fahcr,^''  he  gives  me  good  defence  before  honest 
men,  by  the  very  manner  of  attack,  for  surely  the  name  and  ex- 
ample of"  Faber"  are  good,  against  the  name  and  the  renown  of 
John  Hughes. 

As  to  "  nursing  fathers.''''  The  Presbyterian  Church,  responding 
to  the  American  Constitution,  which  is  but  a  republication  of  Bible 
liberty,  says  it  is  the  duty  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  protect  all  de- 
nominations, giving  the' preference  to  none;  and  cites,  in  proof,  the 
prophet  Isaiah  who  predicts  \h\^  protection  to  the  then  persecuted 
church.  Now  I  call  on  the  gentleman  to  say  what  his  church 
thinks  the  duty  q^ the  civil  magistrate  on  this  subject  ought  to  be? 
I  have  told  him  during  the  unanswered  arguments  of  many  ad- 
dresses, what  it  is;  viz.  "  to  purge  his  territory  of  heretical  filth, ^^ 
*Ho  exterminate  heretics;"  and,  if"  being  warned,  he  shall  refuse, 
let  it  be  told  to  the  pope,  that  he  may  absolve  his  subjects  from 
their  allegiance,  and  give  the  territory  to  those  who  will  keep  it 
free  from  heretics." 

As  to  the  American  Sunday  School  Union.  If  ever  there  was  an 
institution  in  which  sectarian  domination  was  impossible,  it  is 
this.  It  is  one  of  the  most  expressive  and  unanswerable  proofs  of 
the  spirit  of  Mr.  Hughes,  and  of  his  church,  that  he  attacks  such 
institutions  as  that  which  unites  many  denominations  of  Christians, 
to  send  out  the  Bible  without  note  or  comment  to  the  ivhole  world; 
and  ivhich  has  already  caused  the  Bible  to  be  translated  into  one 
hundred  and  fifty-five  languages  of  the  earth!  And  that  institu- 
tion, which  is  even  without  price,  teaching  God's  word  on  God's 
day  to  millions  of  children  in  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  and  America; 
and  which  at  the  cost  of  one  mass  or  one  prayer  for  a  soul  in  'pur- 
gatory, will  teach  a  c\\'\\d  for  five  years,  and  dismiss  him  at  the 
close  with  a  Neio  Testament  in  his  hands.  For  twenty-five  cents 
can  all  this  be  done;  the  tuition  is  gratis,  by  the  best  heads  and 
hearts  of  America  :  [Theodore  Frelinghuysen  is  one  of  these 
teachers ;  and  how  much  of  John  Hughes's  slander  think  you  it 
would  take  to  stain  the  fair  lawn  of  his  "  detestable  Calvinism?"] 
and  then  twelve  and  a  half  for  spelling  books  and  reading  primers, 
and  twelve  and  a  half  cents  for  the  Testament,  and  then  the  whole 
solicited  by  the  Sunday  School  Union,  from  the  American  people 
indiscriminately,  save  the  Catholics  (they  never  give  to  such  in- 
stitutions ;  and  like  them  as  little  as  their  rubicund  priests  do  the 
temperance  society),  and  when  solicited,  given  to  the  printers  and 
binders  of  school  books  and  Bibles  for  the  books  which  are  gratu- 


484 

itously  bestowed  on  the  poor  children  !  Yes!  these  are  the  noble 
institutions  which  foreign  Jesuits  fear,  hate,  and  assail  in  vain. 

This  man  charged  the  American  Sunday  School  Union  with 
saying,  in  one  of  its  rrjjorts,  that  the  purpose  of  the  institution  was 
to  "dictate  to  the  souls  of  thousands  of  immortal  beings.''  I  called 
for  the  j:;roo//  And  instead  of  referring  to  the  report,  he  talks 
of  some  preface  to  one  of  the  catalogues  of  books  published  by 
the  union!  Now  I  ask  him  to  cite  the  ivhole passage :  to  say  if  it 
be  a  report  of  the  society;  and  if  they  announce  on  their  own  au- 
thority, the  principle  charged  on  them?     Let  Mr.  Hughes  reply. 

It  is  laughable  to  see  the  gentleman  ojjpli/  his  huge  Americanism, 
and  his  heroic  love  of  liberty  to  specific  cases.  He  says,  for  ex- 
ample, *'  the  Synod  of  York  (of  Philadelphia  at  York)  has  directed 
an  anti-popery  sermon  to  be  preached  every  year,  and  this  order 
or  direction  is  neither  doctrine  nor  discipline.  The  direction 
given  at  the  Council  of  Lateran,  (which  was  to  destroy  the 
heretics,  depose  rulers  who  countenanced  them,  &c.  &lc.  See  the 
dreadful  canon  given  in  full  in  my  second  speech,  first  night)  was 
in  its  principle  like  that  given  at  the  Synod  of  York"  [at  York). 
It  was  neither  doctrine  nor  discipline. 

But  what  if  the  Synod  had  said,  "every  man  who  will  not  re- 
ceive and  believe  the  doctrines  of  that  sermon  ought  to  be  put  to 
death?''  What  then?  Would  that  be  f/oc/mie?  No!  Would 
it  be  discipline?  No!  What  then?  a  nullity?  Yes!  But  query, 
Can  a  church  pass  such  a  resolution  without  AoMw^  doctrines  and 
pursuing  a  course  unfriendly  to  liberty  o^  conscience,  and  to  civil 
rights?  I  ask  is  there  any  thing  in  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine 
which  the  persecuting  canon  of  the  Lateran  Council  violates  ? 
Our  standards  are  replete  with  explicit  doctrines  against  persecu- 
tion, li  the  gentleman  has  one,  yes  one  such,  I  do  beg  him  to 
show  it.  Now  a  religion  which  can  allow  persecution ;  whose 
infallible  council  can  o?'dcr  it;  and  yet  say  it  is  "  neither  doctrine 
nor  discipline"  to  do  it,  nor  yet  against  its  doctrine  or  discipline, 
has  confessed  guilty  to  all  that  we  have  charged  on  it.  Yet  this 
Mr.  Hughes  has  said  ! 

He  says  he  has  exposed  "  a  \e'^  (of  my  quotations)  as  sam- 
ples." Pray  will  the  gentleman  give  us  one?  I  exposed  the  way 
the  Church  of  Rome  corrupted  the  Bible  in  my  last  speech?  Is 
that  owe  sample.^  I  see — the  gentleman  \s  silent  about  that.  I 
exposed  the  way  in  which  Catholics  corrupted  the  text  of  the 
fathers.  The  gentleman  is  silent  about  that.  Is  that  a  sample  of 
my  false  quotations?  Ah,  gentlemen!  the  good  Samaritan  did  not 
pass  by  on  the  other  side  !     It  was  the  ^jriest  that  did  so! 

The  charge  of  "falsehood"  is  a  matter  of  course  with  Mr. 
Hughes!  But  when  he  can  put  by  my  side  Faber,  and  Dr.  Miller, 
and  the  American  confederation,  and  the  Bible  Society,  and  the 
Sunday  School  Union,  and  stand  himself  with  "  the  lewd  fellows" 


485 

who  make  the  mobs,  and  then  after  hearing  their  crimes  suppress 
them,  under  the  seal  of  confession,  while  he  joins  their  cry  against 
the  wise  and  the  good  !  J  say,  gentlemen,  if  Mr,  Hughes  were  to 
praise  me,  I  should  he\  it  a  duty  at  once  to  begin  the  work  of 
self-examination  ! 

As  to  the  Synod  of  Dort,  you  observe  what  he  says  (extracted 
from  \{s  fierce  enemy)  is  given  by  him  only  with  ''  it  is  reported;" 
a  fine  foundation  truly  for  pages  of  calumny.  But  the  "  viper  bites 
the  filer 

I  would  ask  Mr.  Hughes  to  tell  me  in  his  next,  when  and  ivhere 
the  Presbyterians  had  the  political  and  civil  power  in  their  hands? 
When  he  does  this,  then  it  will  be  time  enough  to  look  at  his  foul- 
mouthed  calumnies.  What  a  heart  must  that  be,  which  can  vent 
such  a  spirit.^  Query?  Can  any  man  sit  and  hear  the  confessions 
of  all  the  crimes  of  all  sorts  of  bad  men,  for  half  a  century,  and 
keep  a  heart  cleaner  than  a  common  sewer? 

The  whole  of  his  attack  on  the  church  of  Holland  is  exposed 
by  one  icord,  in  the  very  extract  which  he  gives  from  Brandt  (vol. 
1st.  p.  316),  when  the  author  says,  that  what  he  relates  was  done 
"  by  an  extraordinary  tribunal  or  court  of  judicature  j"'  Mr. 
Hughes  would  induce  his  hearers  to  suppose  that  all  this  was  the 
act  of  the  church ! 

He  says,  in  reference  to  the  persecuting  canon  of  the  great  La- 
teran  council — "  All  that  he  said  was  that  society  has  a  right  to 
suppress  heretics,  or  no  heretics,  who  undertake  to  overthrow  the 
government." — Very  true.  But,  Mr.  Hughes,  1st.  These  heretics 
were  under  a  foreign  government;  and  not  under  the  Pope's  civil 
government?  Or  do  you  mean  ecclesiastical  government  ?  That 
was  in  all  these  lands!  Do  you  mean  that?  2nd.  The  Council  of 
Lateran  which  met  at  Rome  did  not  represent  "  society^''  but 
"the  Holy  Catholic  Church!"  What  had  the  Pope  to  do  with 
"  society  .^"  Suppose  the  general  assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  should  say,  ^^  society,''''  i.  e.  *'  the  general  assembly,"  has  a 
right  to  suppress,  (by  a  crusade  of  several  hundred  thousand  men,) 
heretics  or  no  heretics,  who  undertake  to  overthrow  the  (Ameri- 
can) "government?"  What,  I  ask  had  the  "Council"  to  do 
with  the  duties  of  civil  "  society"  in  foreign  lands  ?  or  even  in 
Italy,  where  the  Pope  is  an  usurper  placed  and  kept  on  the  backs 
of  the  people  by  Austrian  bayonets — while  his  minions  in  Ame- 
rica, cry  out  for  liberty,  liberty!  Let  Mr.  Hughes  say,  first,  whether 
or  not  the  Pope  has  a  right  to  be  a  civil  Potentate  in  Rome,  from 
God  or  man  ?  Is  he  a  legitimate  ruler  or  a  tyrant  ?  Settle  that 
question,  and  then  talk  of  liberty  ! !  As  to  "  moral  influence,^'  I 
need  not  repeat.  Once  Mr.  Hughes  said  "  we  had  changed  our 
creed  to  suit  the  American  Constitution;  I  replied,  very  well.  What- 
ever the  cause,  you  admit  the/«c^  of  the  change.  And  I  said,  do 
you  only  change  too,  and  then  we  will  shake  hands  over  our  blessed 
constitution.     But,  no!  Rome  never  changes  !     iVo?/;,  the  gentle- 


486 

man  implies  that  there  is  no  change  in  us  ;  that  it  still  means  force, 
by  a  sort  o^  mystic  sense  like  the  secreta  monita  of  the  Jesuits  ;  or 
like  the  consecrated  bread,  it  is  bread  to  Protestants ;  to  Priests 
it  is  **  God,  and  Christ,  very  Christ — bones,  ^c.  <^c." 

The  gentleman  says,  "  the   inquisition  was  entirely  and 

AVOWEDLY  A  POLITICAL  AND  NOT  AN  ECCLESIASTICAL  INSTITU- 
TION." I  am  sorry  to  say  he  hioivs  the  reverse  to  be  true ;  and  I 
have  only  to  refer  the  reader  to  what  I  have  already  said  on  that 
subject,  on  the  Catholic  question.  Devoti,  says,  (see  my  long 
citation  from  him,)  "  The  congregation  of  cardinals  at 
Rome  instituted  by  the  Pope,  in  which  the  Pope  presides, 
IS  the  head  of  all  inquisitors  over  the  whole  world;  to  it 
they  all  refer  their  more  difficult  matters  ;  and  its  au- 
thority IS  final.  It  is  rightly  and  wisely  ordered  that  the 
Pope's  power  and  office  sustain  this  institution.  For  he  is 
the  centre  of  unity  and  head  of  the  chukch;  and  to  him 
Christ  has  committed  plenary  power,  to  feed,  teach,  rule, 
and  govern  all  christians." 

Now  either  the  Pope  is  political  head  of  all  countries  where  the 
inquisition  has  been  established,  or  else  it  is  a  religious,  and  eccle- 
siastical institution.  But,  gentlemen,  I  predict  that  Mr.  Hughes 
will  pass  this  by  in  his  next  speech.  And  here  it  is  curious  to 
see  the  gentleman's  intermitting  conscience  and  sensibility. 

For  one  Catholic  priest's  cruel  (and  so  it  was  cruel)  execution, 
'*  he  sickens  at  the  narrative."  But  the  historian  of  the  Spanish 
inquisition  alone  tells  us  that  there  were,  from  1481  to  1812  (only 
331  years)  341,021  victims,  of  whom  31,912  were  burnt  to 
death.  (1) 

So  of  Servetus.  How  Mr.  Hughes  groans  in  holy  pity  over 
that  poor,  persecuted,  injured  man  !  So  he  was  injured  ;  and 
Calvin,  and  the  Genevese  sinned  against  God  and  the  liberty  of 
Servetus.  But  Servetus  had  run  away  from  the  Catholics  of 
Vienna,  who  only  did  not  burn  him  because  they  could  not  catch 
him.  And  then  the  Huguenots,  and  the  Albigenses,  and  the 
Turks.  Why!  Why!  Historians  say  "the  crusades  were  just 
wars," — "  they  were  heretics  threatening  to  overthrow  the  govern- 
ment." But  what  had  the  Pope  to  do  with  carrying  on  wars? 
What  with  the  military  defence  of  the  state?  This  is  to  confess 
all ;  yes  all. 

As  to  the  Bulla  in  Coena,  &c.  I  am  glad  the  gentleman  admits 
it  exists.  Once  he  had  never  seen  it  in  his  life.  Now  he  stoutly 
cries  out,  "  it  is  in  the  Bullarium  Magnum.'^  I  am  glad  to  hear 
it ;  and  with  great  pleasure  acknowledge  that  I  was  mistaken  in 
saying  it  was  ?iot.  It  was  07ili/  the  first  editions  of  it  that  were 
not  there  printed.    It  was  for  ages  growing  '*  bigger  and  badder,^'' 


(1)  See  Llorente,  already  quoted. 


487 

as  one  of  the  gentleman's  fellow-men  once  said  of  a  lesser  evil,  and 
the  Bullarium  contains  the  form  finished  out. 

As  to  poor  Mr.  Ansley,  I  pity  him,  and  wish  him  well,  espe- 
cially if  he  will  take  care  of  his  family — and  I  shall  think  the  bet- 
ter of  Father  Hughes,  if  he  will  add  his  influence  to  effect  or  aid 
in  that  duty. 

The  following  dignified  and  sensible  letter  from  Bishop  Doane 
on  the  subject  is  my  reply  to  the  scurrility  and  abuse  of  Mr. 
Hughes.  If  Mr.  H.  deem  it  satisfactory,  very  well — I  prefer  not 
to  publish  it,  out  of  respect  to  the  feelings  of  all  the  parties.  If  not 
satisfactory  to  Mr.  H.,  then  I  hereby  add  it  to  this  speech  as  a  part 
thereof,  for  which  act  I  have  in  the  letter  the  permission  of  the 
Right  Rev.  gentleman. 

Burlington,  N.J.  Feb.  16,  1836. 
Rev.  Sir — Your  letter  of  the  8th  arrived  here  in  my  absence.  I 
embrace  the  earliest  leisure  moment  since   my  return  to  reply. 
The  caseof  Mr.  Ansley,  to  which  you  allude,  has  been  a  very  painful 
one,  and  has  indirectly  caused  me  great  perplexity.     Mr.  Ansley 
was  never   received   as  a  minister  of  the   Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States.  He  came  to  me  a  stranger  and  poor, 
and  so  engaged  my  sympathies.     As   he  did  not  bring  letters  to 
me  I  have  never  recommended  him  to  the  patronage  of  others. 
Long  before  he  gave  any  symptoms  of  a  tendency   to  Romanism, 
I  saw  that  his  mind  was  unsettled,  and  I  have  since  learned  that 
he  has  been  at  times  insane.      I  regard  him  as  partially  deranged 
at  this  time,  though  competent  to  pursue  his  business  as  a  teacher. 
Of  course  his  adhesion  to  the  Church  of  Rome  is  no  loss  to  Pro- 
testantism and  no  gain  to  her.     His  strange  conduct  to  his  fami- 
ly I  account  for  on  the  same  ground.     It  is  true  that  he  is  living 
with  his  family.     It  is  not  true  that  he  has  as  yet  contributed  to 
their  support  since  they  came  to  him.     It  is  true  that  both  to  his 
wife  and  children  he  has  been  unkind  in  many  ways,  and  has 
been  unjust  to  obtain  from  her  articles  of  separation.     It  is  very 
probable  that  a  vague  hope  of  being  a  Roman  priest  may  have 
had  some  influence  in  inducing  him  to  pursue  this  course.     But 
I  have  no  ground  for  supposing  that  he  has  been  encouraged  by 
Mr.  Hughes  or  any  other  person  to  pursue  this  course,  or  indeed 
to  expect  that  under  any  circumstances  they  would  admit  him 
to  the  priesthood.     It  should  be  stated  that  immediately  after  the 
first  paroxysm  of  insanity,  which  I  think  was  in  1832,  he  became 
prejudiced  against  his  wife — though,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  without 
the  slightest  reason. 

I  have  thus  stated  the  material  facts  in  the  case,  as  they  appear 
to  me.  You  are  at  liberty  to  use  the  statement  as  you  please. 
Badly  as  I  think  of  the  papal  system,  and  anxious  as  I  am  that  its 
inroads  in  our  country  should  be  resisted,  the  case  of  Mr.  Ansley 
has  not  seemed  to  me  of  much  importance.     An  amiable  man,  of 


488 

not  very  strong  mind,  and  very  imperfect  education  in  theology, 
naturally  recluse  in  his  disposition  and  inclined  to  enthusiasm,  he 
appears  to  have  sunk  under  the  pressure  of  misfortune  into  a  state 
of  mental  alienation,  such  as  had  befallen  his  father  before  him. 
Recovering  in  part,  and  under  some  degree  of  censure  in  his  own 
church,  he  seems  to  have  found  in  the  Romish  system,  elements 
congenial  with  the  morbid  state  of  his  mind  and  heart,  and  to 
have  embraced  it  with  an  eagerness  amounting  to  desperation. 
In  two  or  three  conversations  which  I  had  with  him  before  his 
final  decision,  I  saw  clearly  that  he  knew  nothing  of  the  argu- 
ment— that  to  reason  with  him  was  to  twist  a  rope  of  sand — and 
that  he  was  yielding  to  an  impulse  which  seemed  like  what  we 
are  told  of  fascination. 

I  have  reason  to  believe  that  his  accession  to  the  Romish  ranks 
was  regarded  by  them  as  a  triumph.  I  have  reason  to  believe  that 
it  is  now  regarded  by  them  in  a  very  different  light.  I  have  only 
to  wish  that  since  he  has  chosen  them,  and  they  have  received 
him,  they  would  now  take  him  and  take  care  of  liim.  His  help- 
less family  have  been  taken  care  of  by  the  Christian  benevolence 
of  the  community;  perplexing  and  painful  as  his  course  has  been, 
I  cannot  but  regard  him  as  an  object  of  pity. 

Believe  me,  very  truly  and  respectfully,  yours, 

G.  W.  DOANE. 

Finally,  let  me  state  in  a  word  what  has  often  been  said  before, 
that  in  other  ages,  and  other  countries^  after  the  days  of  Con- 
stanline,  papists  and  Protestants  held  principles,  and  exercised 
discipline  opposed,  in  a  greater  or  less  measure  to  liberty,  both 
civil  and  religious.  The  Protestants  ivere  in  the  amount  of  this ^ 
as  one  to  one  hundred,  to  the  papists.  The  Reformation  ivas  the 
beginning  of  a  glorious  emancipation.  Liberty,  civil  and  reli- 
gious, has  been  gradually  developing  ever  since,  until  it  has  been 
matured  and  restored  to  Apostolic  and  Bible  grounds  in  America. 
All  other  sects  7iot  professing  to  be  infallible  have  adopted  Ame- 
rican principles ;  among  them  Presbyterians.  But  popery,  as 
already  proved,  did  once  persecute  in  fact ;  did  so  on  principle; 
and  ivas  sustained  in  it  by  its  discipline.  Popery  is  the  same  it 
ever  was.  It  ivill  not  change.  Therefore  it  is  still  as  ever  op- 
posed to  liberty,  civil  and  religious.  If  discipline  is  so,  many  of 
its  doctrines  are  so.  Hence  it  is  peaceable,  because  it  has  not  the 
power.  Hence  too  the  former  persecutions  of  Presbyterians, 
which  we  unite  to  condemn,  prove  nothing  to  this  question  ; 
whereas  those  of  Catholics  do  much. 


4S9 


^'  Is  the  Presbyterian  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  V^ 


AFFIRMATIVE  VI.— MR.  HUGHES. 

Mr.  President:: — 

You  and  the  audience  have  seen  verified  the  prediction  of  my 
last  speech,  that  Presbyterianism  is  slow  to  sacrifice  money, 
whilst  it  immolates  truth  by  the  hecatomb.  I  had  proposed  to  place 
at  the  disposal  of  charity,  one  hundred  dollars  for  every  instance 
in  which  I  should  have  failed  to  convict  the  gentleman  of  the 
calumnies  specified  in  my  former  speech,  requiring  that  he,  or  his 
friends,  if  they  have  any  confidence  in  his  statement,  should  for- 
feit a  similar  sum,  for  a  similar  purpose,  as  often  as  I  should  have 
convicted  him.  He  dreads  this  appeal  to  the  purse.  He  knows 
he  should  sufi'er  by  it,  and  he  shrinks  from  the  test,  as  Achilles 
would  from  the  course  of  an  arrow  aimed  at  his  heel.  He  is  scru- 
pulous all  at  once;  and  he  would  not  be  guilty  of  "gambling," 
forsooth!  Sir,  it  is  no  gambling;  it  is  only  a  tax,  which  I 
proposed  to  levy  on  falsehood,  for  the  benefit  of  charity. 
This  question,  therefore,  is  doubly  SETTLED ;  first,  by  his 
shrinking  from  the  original  documents,  and  secondly,  by  his  refu- 
sal to  maintain  his  assertions  at  the  risk  of  his  purse.  /  always 
take  the  precaution  to  make  myself  certain  of  the  truth  of  my 
statements,  when  history  is  in  question;  and  it  is  thus  that  I  am 
supported  by  that  confidence  which  truth  alone  can  inspire.  The 
gentleman,  unfortunately  for  himself,  takes  ignorant  and  faithless 
partizan  guides,  and  hence  it  is  that  he  appears  confounded 
whenever  the  original  fountains  of  history  are  consulted  on 
these  popular  calumnies.  Hence  too,  his  confidence  forsakes  him, 
whenever  he  is  brought  up  to  the  trying  alternative,  of  having  to 
prove,  or  having  to  pay. 

My  reference  to  "patriarchial"  assistance  was  not,  as  he  sup- 
poses, in  compliment  to  the  ability  of  his  speech.  But  it  was  to 
take  away  the  plea  on  which  the  feebleness  of  his  arguments  has 
sometimes  been  accounted  for,  by  those  who  say  that  Presbyte- 
rianism sufi*ers  through  his  incompetency,  rather  than  from  the 
weakness  of  the  cause  itself.  This  cannot  now  be  said,  if,  as  we 
have  reason  to  believe,  his  speeches  have  the  advantage  of  being 
revised  and  amended,  at  head-quarters.     In  this  way  they  furnish 

62 


490 

the  best  answer  to  my  arguments,  tliat  can  be  furnished,  by  even 
the  lions  of  Presbyterianism ;  and  these  answers  consist  in  a  dex- 
terous evasion  of  those  arguments.  The  evidences  of  Presbyte- 
rian intolerance,  tyranny,  and  cruelty,  seem  to  have  taken  them 
all  by  surprise.  They  find  them  rising  up  from  every  country 
under  the  sun,  where  their  system  existed,  and  had  power  to  per- 
secute. They  find  that  not  only  Catholics,  but  men  of  all  other 
religions,  that  ventured  to  worship  Almighty  God,  "according  to 
the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences,"  were  the  victims  of  their 
persecution.  They  find  all  this  undeniable.  And  hence  it  is,  that 
I  have  had  occasion  to  admire  that  discretion  which  has  prompted 
the  gentleman  to  abstain  from  every  attempt  to  grapple  with  facts 
and  arguments,  which  a  "  lion"  of  his  Church  could  not  over- 
throw. 

The  gentleman  does  well,  therefore,  to  reconcile  the  "  proverbs 
of  Solomon,"  since  he  cannot  "reconcile"  the  doctrines  of  his 
Church  with  "  civil  and  religious  liberty." 

Of  what  he  calls  European  persecutions,  by  Presbyterians,  he 
says  he  "  has  owned  that  they  did  in  a  degree  practice  them." 
Now  I  have  proved  that  they  practiced  them  in  EVERY  "  de- 
gree," from  the  pecuniary  fine,  to  the  block,  and  the  stake,  and 
the  gibbet ;  both  in  Europe  and  America.  I  have  proved  that 
there  is  no  instance  in  the  records  of  history,  in  which  they  did 
not  practice  them.  I  have  proved  that,  by  their  Confessions  of 
Faith,  they  were  bound  to  practice  them : — that  they  held  the 
obligation  as  a  "  tenet  revealed  by  the  Almighty,"  and  that  their 
second  commandment,  now^  and  in  this  country/,  (requiring  them 
to  "  REMOVE  ALL  FALSE  WORSHIP,")  biuds  tbcm  Still  to  practice 
them,  "  according  to  each  one's  place  and  calling."  So  long  as 
their  conscience  allows  them  to  continue  in  the  violation  of  that 
divine  precept,  so  long  "false  worships"  may  be  left  unremoved. 
He  then  goes  on  to  tell  us,  what  "  he  has  said  again  and  again." 
Sir,  the  question  is  not  what  he  has  said.  But  the  question  is 
"what  his  Church  has  said.  For  this  I  refer  to  the  Confessions  of 
Faith,  as  exhibited  in  a  former  speech.  Has  the  General  Assem- 
bly ever  condemned  those  Confessions  ?  Has  it  refused  commu- 
nion with  the  sister  Churches  that  hold  them?  Has  it  required 
that  ministers,  coming  from  those  Churches,  should  renounce  any 
portion  of  those  Confessions  ?  No  such  thing.  Then,  it  approves 
them  all ;  and  the  gentleman  cannot  deny  it.  Consequently,  so 
far  as  the  creed  of  Presbyterians  in  this  country  is  concerned,  it 
contains  the  essence  of  all  the  "degrees"  of  persecution,  that  was 
ever  practised  by  its  sister  Churches  in  Europe.  It  requires  only 
a  free  stage,  and  fearless  interpreters. 

He  refers  to  the  fact,  that  the  "  toleration  of  a  false  religion"  is 
no  longer  printed  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  as  a  "  sin  ;"  to  prove 
that  Prssbyterians  have  changed  their  persecuting  doctrines  since 
the  Constitution.     This  is  a  sophistry  ;  for  it  is  essentially  sinful 


491 

to  tolerate  what  God,  as  they  hold,  commands  them  to  "  remove." 
The  Catholic  doctrine  never  taught  that  such  toleration  was 
sinful;  and  therefore,  it  never  could  change.  We  have  seen,  un- 
der the  former  question,  that  Catholic  nations  have  been  the  first 
to  grant  this  toleration,  and  never  have  they  been  reproached  by 
Iheir  Church  for  it,  as  if  it  were  sinful,  or  against  any  doctrine. 
This  settles  that  question.  The  gentleman  does  not  meet  the  dif- 
ficulty, by  quoting  those  parts  of  his  standards  which  instruct  the 
magistrates  as  to  their  duties.  Their  duties  flow  from  the  Con- 
stitution, and  are  determined  by  it,  much  more  wisely  than  by 
the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly.  He  says,  that  in  order  to 
"  accept  a  civil  establishment,  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  must 
change."  To  this  I  answer,  that  even  if  it  were  true,  nothing  is 
easier  than  this  '*  change."  But  so  far  from  its  being  necessary  to 
change,  in  order  to  a  union  with  the  state,  1  maintain  that  its  doctrine 
is  expressly  adapted  for  that  union :  and  that  the  Confession  of 
Faith  is  completely  "  out  of  joint,"  till  it  be  accepted  or  secured. 
This  I  shall  establish  in  the  course  of  the  present  speech. 

The  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism, marriage,  &:c.,  the  gentleman  could  learn,  if  he  would  only 
read  our  Catechisms;  but  I  cannot  lose  my  time,  just  now,  in 
giving  him  the  instruction  of  which  his  remarks  on  these  subjects 
prove  him  to  stand  so  much  in  need.  The  gentleman,  on  the 
subject  of  baptism,  puts  two  questions,  in  which  he  betrays  again 
the  meanness  that  would  insinuate,  the  safeguard  of  the  slanderer, 
and  the  cowardice  that  shrinks  from  the  responsibility  of  direct 
honest  assertion.  If  he  means  to  assert,  I  fling  his  statement 
back  on  him ;  and  challenge  him  to  produce  his  testimony.  If 
he  asks  for  information,  I  tell  him  I  have  too  much  contempt  for 
the  grossness  that  could  give  public  utterance  to  such  a  question, 
and  too  much  respect  for  myself,  to  give  it  any  reply.  Baptism, 
marriage,  confession,  and  all  the  other  portions  of  the  Catholic  re- 
ligion, may  be  called  by  any  nickname,  which  he  or  Blanco 
White  thinks  proper  to  apply ;  but  they  constitute  the  points  in 
which  Catholics  exercise  their  liberty  of  conscience ;  and^br  this 
they  are  persecuted  by  the  fanatics,  of  whom  the  gentleman  is  a 
fit  representative. 

As  to  the  liberty  of  the  press,  there  can  be  no  doctrines  in  the 
Catholic  religion  on  that  subject,  more  than  on  chemistry.  But  it 
may  have  been  necessary  to  take  precautions  against  its  abuse,  and 
this  is  all  that  the  Church  has  ever  done.  All  sects  oppose  the 
liberty  of  the  press,  by  endeavouring  to  exclude  such  publications 
as  expose  their  real  or  supposed  errors.  The  writings  of  Catho- 
lics, and  the  Scriptures  of  Unitarians,  find  no  favour  with  Presby- 
terians. The  people  of  the  South,  in  a  particular  crisis  of  society, 
find  it  absolutely  necessary  to  check  the  circulation  of  the  inflam- 
matory publications  with  which  they  are  inundated.  Yet,  it  does 
not  follow,  that  the  Constitution  or  its  principles  are  hostile  to  the 


492 

liberty  of  the  press.  As  little  so  is  the  Catholic  religion,  what- 
ever regulations  may  have  been  made  to  restrain  its  abuse.  The 
principles  laid  down  in  the  Controversy,  respecting  the  DOC- 
TRINES of  the  Catholic  religion,  are  maintained  still.  They 
admit  of  no  change.  They  are  as  old  as  Christianity,  and  as  uni- 
versal as  the  Church.  And  as  the  gentleman  has  been  unable  to 
discover  among  them,  any  principles  or  tenets  opposed  to  civil 
and  religious  liberty,  it  follows  that  such  tenets  cannot  now,  or  at 
any  future  time,  be  incorporated  with  them.  Laws  having  a  per- 
secuting tendency  have  been  repealed  in  Catholic  countries,  and 
can  be  repealed  where  it  has  not  already  been  done,  without  any 
violation  of  doctrine,  without  any  breaking  of  the  second  com- 
mandment. These  laws  are  what  the  gentleman,  ignorantly  per- 
haps, but  certainly  falsely,  calls  Catholic  doctrines.  This  has 
been  abundantly  proved  throughout  the  present  discussion.  If  I 
had  allowed  him  to  exalt  the  facts  or  the  follies,  or  the  vices  of 
other  times,  to  the  rank  of  Catholic  doctrines,  then  his  argument 
would  have  been  good.  But  the  question  was  exclusively  on  the 
doctrines  : — and  the  doctrines  were  restricted  exclusively  to  those 
"tenets  of  faith  and  morals,  which  Catholics  hold  as  having  been 
revealed  by  Almighty  God." 

Now  let  the  gentleman  boast  of  the  changeableness  of  doctrine 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  And  if  they  have  changed,  as  he  as- 
serts, let  the  next  General  Assembly  break  communion  with  those 
sister  Presbyteries  in  Europe,  in  whose  Confessions  of  Faith  the 
principle  of  intolerance  is  avoioed  as  a  doctrine.  It  is  avowed 
in  the  Church  to  which  Doctor  Brownlee  belongs.  Let  them  con- 
demn it  as  an  error  in  doctrine.  If  they  do  not,  it  is  their  own ; 
and  the  gentleman  makes  himself  ridiculous,  when  he  denies  it. 
Let  them  revise  their  own  Confession  of  Faith,  and  purge  out  the 
old  leaven  of  Scotch  and  English  Presbyterian  intolerance,  with 
which  it  is  leavened.  Let  them  receive  ministers  from  Europe, 
where  the  gentleman  acknowledges  the  intolerance  of  their  doc- 
trine, not  as  brethren  of  the  same  faith,  but  as  converts  from  an- 
other religion,  who  must  first  renounce  their  errors,  before  they 
can  be  admitted  into  the  communion  and  ministry  of  American 
Presbyterianism.  When  this  is  done,  then  let  them  talk  of  hav- 
ing renounced  the  errors  of  their  forefathers,  and  European  breth- 
ren, but  not  before.  The  assertions  of  a  change  of  doctrine,  so 
long  as  there  are  these,  and  a  hundred  other  similar  FACTS,  to 
disprove  it,  must  pass  for  absolutely  less  than  nothing.  They  are 
unproved,  unsupported,  and  in  direct  opposition  to  the  testimony 

of  FACTS. 

The  Catholics  hold  marriage  to  be  a  sacrament,  which  cannot 
be  rightly  administered,  except  in  the  presence  of  the  parish 
priest.  But  this  is  only  where  the  discipline  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  is  established,  which  it  is  not,  in  this  country.  Now,  whether 
it  were  received  or  not,  cannot  in  the  least  affect  the  civil  rights  of 


493 

any  one.  We  look  on  Protestant  marriages,  whether  by  the 
magistrate,  or  parson,  to  be  as  sacred  and  binding,  as  they  do 
themselves.  But  they  are  not  Catholic  marriages,  nor  do  we  re- 
gard them  as  conferring  the  sacrament.  We  hold  that  the  legis- 
lature or  civil  government,  for  sufficient  reasons,  may  grant  a 
divorce,  but  we  hold  that  the  parties  divorced  are  not,  therefore,  at 
liberty  to  marry  or  violate  their  conjugal  fidelity,  until  the  death  of 
one  or  the  other.  Here,  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  is  more  ac- 
commodating. It  allows  the  husband  or  wife  "  in  case  of  such 
wilful  desertion,  as  can  in  no  wise  be  remedied  by  the  civil  ma- 
gistrate," to  sue  out  a  bill  of  divorce  and  marry  again.  This,  the 
gentleman  may  call  "  liberty ;"  to  me  it  seems  to  be  licentiousness. 
But  at  any  rate,  we  have  seen  that  the  sister  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Holland,  required  that  all  children,  whose  parents  were  not 
married  by  their  Calvinistic  ministers,  should  be  made  ILLE- 
GITIMATE BY  law!  And  with  the  Church  of  Holland  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  America  holds  communion !  The  gen- 
tleman seems  to  have  forgotten  all  these  things. 

He  acknowledges  that  he  "  cannot  answer  my  arguments,"  and 
assigns  as  the  reason,  that  there  is  "  nothing  to  answer."  On  that 
point  I  leave  the  public  to  decide. 

Having  "  nothing  to  answer,"  therefore,  as  he  supposes,  he 
has  recourse   to  his  old  theme,  the   "  abuse   of  popery."     He 
tells  us  what  Father  Paul  said.     Every  man  acquainted  with  the 
character  of  Father  Paul,  Protestant  and  Catholic,  knows  him  to 
have  been  "  a  Lutheran  in  a  monk's  dress."     In  his  history  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  Cardinal  Pallavicini  pointed  out  and  proved 
no  less  than  three  hundred  and  sixty-four  falsehoods.     Such  a 
writer  is  the  very  authority  that  suits  the  gentleman.     Dupin  and 
Thuanus  belong  to  the  same  class.     But  even  Father  Paul  does 
not  say  that  Protestants  were  put  to  death  exclusively  for  exer- 
cising the  rights  of  conscience.     They  attacked  the  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  and,  in  doing  so,  in  those  times  and  coun- 
tries, they  attacked  the  religion  of  the  people  at  large,  and  the 
laws  of  the  state.     The  progress  of  their  doctrine  was  synony- 
mous with  that  of  civil  broils,  sedition,  rebellion,  or  revolution,  as 
the  gentleman  may  think  proper  to  call  it.     They  fought  their 
doctrines  into  supremacy.     The  Catholics  had  the  pretext  of  self- 
preservation  for  those  acts  which  are  called   persecution.     But 
when  the   Presbyterians  persecuted  they  had  no  such  pretext. 
They  did  it  on  doctrine,  as  the  guardians  of  their  own  upstart 
infallibility,  and  the  avengers  of  God's  insulted  majesty.     They 
hanged  the  Quakers,  because  they  were  Quakers,  and  not  because 
they  were  seditious  or  enemies  to  the  state.     They  drowned  the 
Baptists,  because  they  deemed  it,  in  conscience,  a  duty  to  re- 
baptize,   and   not   because   they  were   traitors.     They  made    it 
DEATH  for  the  Catholics  to  have  "  said  or  heard  mass  three 
times,"  because  they  exercised  the  right  of  conscience  in  wor- 


494 

shipping  God  according  to  the  liturgy  of  the  Christian  Church  for 
fifteen  hundred  years,  rather  than  according  to  the  worship  set  up 
by  the  murderers  of  Servetus  and  of  Cardinal  Beaton.  The  exercise 
of  the  rights  of  conscience  between  man  and  his  God,  was  the 
ONLY  GROUND  on  which  Presbyterians  persecuted  to  death.  But 
the  persecutions  by  Catholics  were  on  many  other  grounds,  which 
show  that  mere  liberty  of  conscience  was  not  the  exclusive  plea. 
At  the  origin  of  the  Reformation  so  called,  the  Catholics  were  in 
possession.  This  is  important.  The  reformers  possessed  nothing. 
Liberty  of  conscience  was,  as  the  gentleman  has  himself  defined  it, 
the  "  I'ight  of  every  man  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dic- 
tates of  his  own  conscience,  without  injuring  or  invading  the 
RIGHTS  OF  OTHERS."  Now  there  is  no  instance  on  record  in  which 
the  reformers  respected  this  qualification.  They  claimed  liberty 
of  conscience;  but  the  universal  attestation  of  history  is,  that, 
under  this  term,  they  meant  liberty  of  usurpation  on  the  rights  of 
others  in  church  and  state.  They  had  nothing — they  claimed  to 
possess  themselves  of  what  belonged  to  others.  They  claimed 
it,  they  prayed  for  it,  they  preached  for  it,  they  intrigued  for  it, 
they  fought  for  it.  The  martyrs  of  Presbyterianism,  therefore, 
are  men  who  fell  in  this  struggle  for  domination,  between  those 
who  claimed  by  possession,  and  those  who  claimed  by  usurpation. 
In  such  a  case  the  persecution  was  by  the  usurpers,  and  not  by 
the  possessors.  But  there  was  no  such  extenuation  for  the  per- 
secutions of  Catholics,  Episcopalians,  Baptists,  Lutherans,  Qua- 
kers, &-C.  whom  the  Presbyterians  persecuted.  They  *'  invaded," 
they  "  injured"  no  man's  rights.  They  simply  wished  to 
worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  conscience. 
For  this,  and  for  this  alone,  they  were,  as  we  have  seen,  burnt, 
or  hanged,  or  drowned,  or  whipt  at  the  cart-tail  by  the  Presby- 
terians. And  why  should  it  not  be  so,  since  God  has  commanded 
the  Presbyterians,  according  to  their  book  of  doctrine,  to  "  remove 

ALL  FALSE  WORSHIP." 

Again,  the  Presbyterian  religion  was  unknown  in  the  world  for 
fifteen  hundred  years  after  the  origin  of  the  Christian  religion. 
If  there  was  a  Christian  religion  on  the  earth,  during  all  that 
time,  it  was  the  Catholic  religion.  At  length  a  few  obscure  indi- 
viduals cry  out  hoarsely,  that  this  Catholic — this  Christian  reli- 
gion of  fifteen  centuries,  was  the  church,  not  of  Christ,  but  of 
Anti-Christ !  In  other  words,  that  Christ  had  no  church  on  earth ; 
and  therefore,  they  would  make  a  church  for  him.  They  gave 
no  proof  that  they  had  been  appointed  for  this  purpose — no  mira- 
cles— no  commission — no  extraordinary  sanctity — no  motives  of 
credibility  like  those  that  accompanied  the  founding  of  the  first 
church,  and  therefore  the  true  church.  Now,  until  this  period, 
Presbyterians  never  persecuted;  inasmuch  as,  until  this  period, 
Presbyterians  did  not  exist.  Until  this  period  the  crimes  and 
vices   of  Christians   were   those   of  Catholics — of  men   whose 


495 

wicked  lives  were  in  open  violation  of  the  holy  religion  which 
they  professed.  But  then,  the  glory  of  all  the  zeal,  patience, 
purity  and  holiness,  that  had  adorned  the  Christian  name,  be- 
longed also  to  the  Catholic  Church. 

We  pass  to  another  consideration.  The  Presbyterians  having 
existed  only  within  the  last  three  hundred  years,  have  been  as 
disproportioned  to  the  Catholics  in  point  of  numbers  as  in  point 
of  time.  Their  greatest  numbers  at  any  time,  did  not  exceed  fifteen 
or  twenty  millions.  Those  of  the  Catholics  are  now  from  a 
hundred  and  eighty  to  two  hundred  millions.  Besides  this,  the 
Presbyterians  have  had  civil  power  only  for  a  short  time.  And 
it  is  only  when  a  denomination  has  civil  power,  that  it  can  show 
the  workings  of  its  doctrine.  We  have  seen  what  were  those 
of  Presbyterianism.  Not  a  single  exception  on  record — not  a 
single  case  in  which  their  doctrines  did  not  drive  them  to  per- 
secute others  when  they  had  the  power!  I  have  called  on  the 
gentleman  repeatedly  to  name  a  single  kingdom,  or  canton,  or 
city,  or  village,  in  which  the  civil  power  belonged  to  Presby- 
terians, and  they  did  not  use  it  for  persecution.  He  has  not  been 
able  to  name  one  I  Not  so  much  as  ONE  ! ! !  Now,  supposing 
they  had  been  as  numerous  as  the  Catholics— supposing  they  had 
been  as  long  in  possession  of  civil  power — and  had  carried  out 
their  doctrines^  as  they  have  done  according  to  their  numbers 
and  opportunities  within  the  short  period  of  their  existence,  I  ask 
whether,  by  this  time,  there  would  be  another  denomination  of 
Christians  left  in  existence?  Would  they  not  have  ^^ removed 
all  false  worship  ?^^  And  especially,  if,  after  having  been  estab- 
lished for  centuries  in  their  possession,  they  had  been  attacked 
by  upstart  and  unheard  of  religionists,  as  the  Catholics  were  at 
the  Reformation — would  they  consider  it  persecution  to  have 
refused  giving  up  their  churches — their  castles — their  towns — 
their  government — to  men  who  wielded  every  concession  for  the 
destruction  of  those  from  whom  it  had  been  obtained  ?  If  to  have 
"  heard  or  said  mass  three  times" — to  have  said  "  thee  and 
thou" — to  have  administered  baptism  by  immersion,  were  crimes 
worthy  of  death,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  history  of  Presbyte- 
rianism, what  would  it  have  been,  if,  having  the  same  civil  poiver 
and  numerical  strength,  which  the  Catholics  had  at  the  time  of 
the  Reformation,  individuals  had  arisen  to  pervert  the  Scriptures,  and 
prove,  by  the  perversion,  that  the  Presbyterians  were  Anti-Christs, 
and  proclaim  that  every  blow  which  was  struck  for  their  destruc- 
tion, was  a  blow  against  the  apocolyptic  beast?  Why,  sir,  judg- 
ing from  what  Presbyterians  have  done,  during  the  short  period 
of  their  existence,  the  paucity  of  their  numbers,  and  the  few 
opportunities  they  have  had  to  persecute,  it  is  not  too  much  to 
infer  that,  had  they  occupied,  in  all  respects,  the  position  which 
the  Catholics  held  at  the  origin  of  the  Reformation,  the  advocates 
of  what,  in  that  case,  would  be  the  ''  false  worship,"  would  have 


496 

been  cliopped  up  into  mincc-meat.  No  man  who  overlooks  these 
circumstances  can  form  a  correct  estimate  of  the  extent  to  which 
the  doctrines  of  Presbyterianism  are  imbued  with  the  principle 
and  ESSENCE  of  persecution. 

The  gentleman,  instead  of  meeting  these  arguments,  turns  aside 
to  criticise  Donovan's  Translation  of  the  Trentine  Catechism. 
I  shall  not  follow  him,  unless  he  or  his  friends  have  confidence 
enough  in  his  statements,  to  sacrifice  their  purse,  to  the  same 
extent  to  which  I  charge  him  with  having  immolated  truth.  His 
episodes  have  no  connexion  with  the  subject,  even  if  they  were 
not  the  assumption  of  what  is  false.  They  are  taken  from 
Cramp,  who,  like  Mr.  Breckinridge,  begins  and  ends  his  quota- 
tions in  the  middle  of  sentences ; — changes  the  punctuation,  and 
stops  at  the  commencement  of  the  portion  that  would  refute  him. 
The  commission  of  frauds  on  the  word  of  God  is  begging  the 
question.  /  say  it  is  the  Protestant  version  that  is  corrupt ;  the 
gentleman  says  it  is  the  Catholic.  Who  shall  decide?  Let  those 
who  existed  before  the  origin  of  the  dispute — the  impartial  wit- 
nesses— decide.  Then,  I  shall  prove  the  corruption  of  the  Pro- 
testant version.  It  is  they  who  have  changed^  not  we.  But 
who  corrupted  the  Bible  of  the  Bishop  of  Segovia?  Who  put  a 
falsehood,  known,  deliberate,  intentional  falsehood,  on  the  title- 
page  of  that  Bible  whereby  to  deceive  the  South  Americans? 
Who  gave  this  corrupting  example  to  American  morals  ?  Who 
gave  such  a  sacrilegious  instance  to  prove  that  the  "  end  justifies 
the  means  ?"  The  Bible  Society ! !  Why  is  the  gentleman  silent 
on  that  subject?  It  is  far  more  important  than  the  pretended 
discrepancy  between  two  translations  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
Catechism. 

The  stenographer  should  have  been  engaged  by  the  Society. 
For  three  nights  there  was  none.  The  report  of  the  other  nine 
nights  did  not  profess  to  give  the  words,  but  the  substance  of 
my  arguments.  I  preferred  the  words;  and  did  not  choose  that 
my  arguments  should  receive  their  cast  from  a  Presbyterian 
mould.  When  the  gentleman  proposed  to  compensate  the  steno- 
grapher by  a  public  contribution,  I  regarded  the  proceeding  as  an 
insult  both  to  the  stenographer  and  the  Society  that  was  supposed 
to  have  employed  him.  If  the  Society  was  unable  to  pay  him, 
from  the  proceeds  of  the  Discussion,  I  proposed  to  pay  him  half, 
if  the  gentleman  would  pay  the  other  half.  But  to  impose  an 
eleemosynary  tax  on  the  audience,  to  pay  the  stenographer,  was 
an  insult  to  the  Society  which  they  should  have  repelled  promptly 
and  indignantly.  These  are  the  reasons  why  I  have  not  contri- 
buted, and  shall  not  contribute  to  any  charity  collection  for  the 
stenographer. 

As  to  the  number  of  Calvinistic  Baptists,  the  gentleman  may 
cite  any  authority  he  pleases.  When,  also,  in  regard  to  the 
"  intention"  of  the  editor  of  the  Catholic  Telegraph,  he  says  it 


497 

was  bad,  he  must  prove  what  he  says ;  and  it  is  not  for  me,  as  he 
pretends,  to  prove  the  contrary.  To  a  gratuitous  assertion,  the 
laws  of  reasoning-  authorize  us  to  oppose  a  gratuitous  denial. 
The  onus  probandi  rests  with  him. 

Respecting  the  "  doom"  with  which  he  threatened  Catholics  in 
his  former  speech,  he  now  says  that  it  was  "not  pronounced 
BY  HIM,  BUT  BY  GoD ;"  and  he  incontinently  falls  into  a  fit  of  the 
apocolyptic  mania,  which  has  qualified  so  many  of  his  predeces- 
sors for  the  Bedlam.  Scaliger  says  of  Calvin  that  he  was  wise 
for  not  having  written  on  the  Apocalypse, 

Sapuit  Calvinus  quia  non  scripsit  in  Apocalypsin. 

The  ravings,  to  which  this  mania  has  driven  those  who  have 
been  affected  with  it-,  are  as  numerous  and  extravagant  as  the 
vagaries  of  the  human  mind,  in  its  most  disordered  condition. 
I  shall  give  only  one  specimen,  from  the  writings  of  an  English 
divine,  who  is  considered  sane  notwithstanding. 

"  He  convinced  himself  that  the  name  of  the  beast  was  Lateinos, 
and  that  Lateinos  must  signify  the  Latin  Church.  The  proof  is 
curious.  Lateinos,  he  contends,  is  derived  from  the  Hebrew 
monosyUable  LAT,  which  means  to  cover  or  conceal.  Now  the 
Latin  Church,  in  the  celebration  of  the  mass,  conceals  some  of 
the  prayers  from  the  people,  by  ordering  them  to  be  pionounced 
with  a  low  voice:  therefore  the  Latin  Church  is  Lateinos,  the 
beast  in  the  Apocalypse.  Moreover,  the  head  of  the  Latin 
Church  resides  in  the  palace  of  the  Lateran,  a  name  derived  from 
the  same  monosyllable  LAT :  and  the  Lateran  palace  is  situated 
in  the  country  anciently  called  Latium,  an  appellation  also  derived 
from  the  same  monosyllable  LAT:  and  Latium  is  a  province  of 
that  part  of  Europe  called  Italy,  which  also  derives  its  name  from 
the  same  monosyllable  LAT.  Be  not  startled,  gentle  reader; 
apocalyptic  maniacs  can,  with  equal  facility,  read  backwards  or 
forwards;  and  Mr.  Sharp  informs  us,  that,  if  we  read  Italy  back- 
wards, we  shall  have  Ylati,  in  the  midst  of  which  is  the  same 
Hebrew  monosyllable  LAT.     Naviget  anticyram  !" 

I  proved  that  the  gentleman,  following  Faber,  falsified  the 
documents  to  which  he  referred.  He  refers  to  the  matter  in 
a  tone  which  seems  to  intimate,  that  it  is  more  honourable  to 
corrupt  citations  with  Faber,  than  give  them  honestly  with 
Mr.  Hughes.  With  men  of  such  easy  principles  of  literary 
honour  it  is  humiliating  to  have  to  contend.  With  men  who  are 
unwilling  or  incompetent  to  consult  history  at  the  original  foun- 
tains, but  who  have  to  take  information  at  second  hand,  without 
knowing  what  is  true  from  what  is  false — with  such  men  contro- 
versy and  discussion  give  disgust,  and  no  laurels.  Yet  such 
men  are  the  fittest  to  maintain  the  position  which  the  gentleman 
occupies. 

As  to  the  "  nursing  fathers,"  the  gentleman,  after  various  fruit- 

63 


498 

less  attempts  to  explain  it  as  meaning  nothing  at  all,  at  length 
takes  the  true  interpretation,  and  refers  to  the  Prophecies  of  Isaiah 
to  prove  it  should  be  so.  Now  this  is  precisely  the  doctrine  of 
his  church ;  and  the  arguments  by  which  I  showed  its  dangerous 
and  unfriendly  bearing  on  liberty  of  conscience  and  the  rights  of 
other  denominations — remain  unanswered  and  untouched. 

He  lauds  the  Sunday  School  Union  with  eulogy,  which  may  he 
deserved,  or  at  least  needed  ;  but  neither  does  he  touch  or  meet 
my  arguments,  on  that  subject.  He  represents  me  as  among  those 
who  "  fear,  hate,  and  assail  it  in  vain."  The  charge  is  false  and 
futile.  Of  its  merits  or  demerits,  I  have  not  spoken.  I  have  com- 
mented on  its  own  published  documents,  in  which  was  avowed 
the  plan  to  alter  books,  and  yet  keep  their  titles,  to  change 

THE  IDEAS  OF  AUTHORS,  TO  EDUCATE  A  POLITICAL  INFLUENCE, 
WHICH  IN  "  TEN,  OR  AT  MOST,  TWENTY  YEARS,"  WAS  TO  WIELD  OR 
CONTROL  THE  DESTINIES    OF    THIS  COUNTRY,  AND  IN  A    WORD    '*  TO 

DICTATE  TO  THE  SOULS  OF  THOUSANDS  OF  IMMOR- 
TAL BEINGS."  What  I  attacked,  the  gentleman  does  not  re- 
ply to ;  what  I  did  not  attack,  he  defends.  And  here  let  me  ob- 
serve, once  for  all,  that  Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  Mr.  Sergeant,  Mr. 
Ralston,  Mr.  Henry,  and  the  other  names  which  the  gentleman 
has  paraded  in  this  discussion,  as  if  they  stood  in  need  of  vindi- 
cation, have  never  been  attacked  by  me.  I  beg  those  gentlemen, 
if  they  should  ever  see  this  Discussion,  to  be  assured  that  I  enter- 
tain as  much  respect  for  their  character,  as  the  gentleman  can  do; 
and  too  much  to  suppose  for  a  moment,  that  they  would  ever  sanc- 
tion the  grasping  ambition  of  the  pretensions  which  I  have  cen- 
sured in  the  Sunday  School  Union,  or  the  impressing  of  a  false- 
hood on  the  title-page  of  a  Bible,  in  order  to  deceive  the  Spaniards, 
as  has  been  done  by  the  Bible  Society.  I  wish  them  to  know 
that  it  is  the  gentleman,  and  not  I,  that  has  brought  their  names 
forward,  to  cover  those  proceedings  over  with  the  mantle  of  their 
respectability.  The  "preface"  was  as  much  by  the  authority  of 
the  Sunday  School,  as  if  it  had  been  a  "  report."  He  had  said 
it  was  "false."  What  does  he  say  now?  Does  he  meet  it? 
Does  he  justify  it?  Does  he  condemn  it?  Neither.  There  it 
is,  and  he  has  not  a  word  to  reply  to  it. 

He  refers  again  to  the  Synod  at  York,  and  Mr.  Barnes's  case. 
In  all  my  reading  of  Synods,  either  Catholic,  or  Protestant,  I 
never  saw  more  of  the  spirit  of  tyranny  over  conscience,  and  of 
persecution,  than  was  in  that  case  exhibited  by  the  majority.  If 
the  power  had  been  as  the  will  seems  to  have  been,  Mr.  Barnes 
would  have  fared  no  better  than  the  fifteen  deputies  of  the  Armi- 
nians,  who,  after  having  been  invited  to  the  Presbyterian  Synod 
of  Dort,  were,  on  the  condemnation  of  their  supposed  errors, 
seized,  imprisoned,  and  hurried  into  banishment,  without  being 
allowed  to  take  leave  of  their  families  ;  as  is  related  by  Brandt.  If 
the  orthodox  brethren  at  York  had  had  the  "  nursing  fathers"  at 


499 

their  command,  as  they  had  in  Holland,  there  was  spirit  enough 
in  the  Synod,  to  treat  Mr.  Barnes  and  his  friends  in  the  same  way. 
Here  was  liberty  of  conscience !  Here  was  the  principle  of  not 
keeping  faith  with  heretics,  fully  and  authoritatively  acted  on. 
First,  invite  the  Arminians  to  the  Synod,  then  seize  their  persons 
and  send  them  into  exile, /or  being  Arminians,  and  J  or  no  other 
crime. 

The  Secreta  Monita,  of  which  the  gentleman  has  spoken,  is 
known  to  every  scholar  in  Europe  to  be  spurious.  Even  in  the 
British  Parliament,  it  was  denounced  by  as  great  a  bigot  as  need 
be,  Leslie  Foster,  as  a  FORGERY.  This  very  character,  or 
rather  merit,  in  the  eyes  of  bigots  every  where,  may  have  been 
the  cause  of  its  publication  recently  in  Princeton.  Such  a  work 
comes  appropriately  from  such  a  quarter. 

Of  the  Inquisition  I  have  said,  that  so  far  as  it  is  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal concern,  the  principle  of  it  is  common  to  all  Churches  having  or- 
thodox creeds ;  it  is  only  another  name  for  that  spirit  of  heresy- 
hunting,  with  which  old  Presbyterianism  is  so  thoroughly  imbu- 
ed. So  far  as  it  was  a  tribunal  for  the  dispensation  of  temporal 
punishment,  it  was  "  entirely  and  avowedly  a  political  and 
NOT  AN  ECCLESIASTICAL  INSTITUTION."  This  accouut  corrcsponds 
perfectly  with  that  of  Devoti ;  it  is  founded  in  history  and  truth, 
as  the  gentleman  is  culpably  ignorant  if  he  does  not  know.  There 
is  no  subject  of  history  on  which  there  is  so  much  ignorance  and  mis- 
information abroad,  as  on  the  Inquisition.  I  neither  defend  nor  ap- 
prove of  it.  But  the  very  feature,  which  was  most  objectionable 
in  it,  that  which  made  it  so  terrible,  and  left  no  data  for  those  who 
would  be  its  historians,  was  its  secrecy.  It  tried  men  for  other 
crimes  besides  heresy,  crimes  which  were  punishable  with  death 
in  all  countries.  But  of  its  victims,  there  is  no  evidence  that  it 
kept  any  record,  whilst  its  secrecy  warrants  the  belief  that  it  did 
not.  Llorentte,  and  those  who  have  written  on  it,  drew  on  their 
imaginations  just  like  Miss  Monk,  in  describing  the  Convent  at 
Montreal.  But  besides,  those  writers  were  ministering  to  that 
morbid  appetite,  which  feasts  on  the  pretended  disclosures  of  pro- 
ceedings which  they  know  to  have  been  conducted  in  secrecy. 
Hence,  even  the  British  Critic,  an  English  Protestant  Review, 
says  of  the  work  of  lilorentte,  that  ''although  it  might  he  too 
much  to  say,  that  the  whole  is  false,  yet  that  there  can  be  no 
more  than  a  weak  tincture  of  truth,  largely  dashed  and  brew- 
ed   WITH    LIES." 

With  regard  to  Mr.  Ansley,  the  event  has  justified  my  predic- 
tion; that  "  so  far  as  I  was  concerned  at  least,  the  gentleman's  in- 
sinuations were  founded  on  falsehood,  and  must  recoil  upon  their 
source."  So  it  is  proven  by  Bishop  Doane's  letter.  Of  that  docu- 
ment, the  gentleman  may  make  what  use  lie  thinks  proper.  I 
wash  my  hands  of  all  proceedings,  having  for  their  object  to  ex- 
pose the  domestic  coiicerns  of  any  family.     To  the  gentleman 


500 

alone,  must  belong  llie  undivided  glory  of  this  magnanimoicf^ 
achievement.  He  breaks  in  on  the  domestic  sanctuary  of  a  fami- 
ly, with  which  he  has  nothing  to  do  ;  he  hears  the  gossip  of  dis- 
agreement between  husband  and  wife  ;  he  writes  for  more,  he 
knows  nothing  of  the  cause,  and  yet  with  a  heartlessness  and  in- 
delicacy, which  must  plant  a  wound  in  the  breast  of  a  father  like 
liimself,  and  a  wife  like  his  own,  and  children  who  have  commit- 
ted no  fault,  he  blazons  these  sacred  topics  in  a  book!  !  Ail  to 
inflict  a  wound  on  Popery !  And  yet  he  fails.  Mr.  Ansley  had 
been  a  Protestant  minister ;  and  of  his  own  accord,  in  the  exercise 
of  his  rights  of  conscience,  he  became  a  Catholic.  This  was  his 
crime.  Supposing  I  were  to  make  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge treats  his  wife  and  family  the  subject  of  a  scandalous  dis- 
sertation in  this  Discussion ;  what  would  he  say  ?  What  would 
the  public  say  ?  And  yet  the  domestic  sanctuary  of  every  man 
is,  or  ought  to  be,  as  inviolable  and  as  sacred  as  his.  I  would 
not  be  the  author  of  what  lie  has  said  on  this  subject,  as  he  has 
said  it,  for  all  the  exchequer  of  his  Church.  • 

I  shall  now  turn  to  the  prosecution  of  my  argument. 

We  have  seen  that  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  in  Great  Bri- 
tain, Ireland,  and  New  England,  that  is,  in  every  country  in 
which  they  existed,  Presbyterians  persecuted  all  other  denomina- 
tions when  they  had  the  civil  power  to  do  so.  There  is  no  excep- 
tion. This  they  did,  as  appears  by  all  their  CONFESSIONS  to 
which  I  refer,  as  quoted  in  a  former  speech,  on  a  principle  of  doc- 
trine. The  gentleman  began  his  defence,  by  disowning  and  de- 
nouncing those  European  Presbyterians,  as  unsound  in  the  faith, 
and  as  holding  errors  which  his  Church,  in  this  country,  since 
the  formation  of  the  Federal  Coyistitution,  has  rejected  and  con- 
demned. I  have  proved  the  contrary  by  facts,  that  are  uncontro- 
verted,  and  incontrovertible,  viz:  that  his  Church  holds  commu- 
nion with  those  sister  Churches  of  Europe ;  and  receives  their 
ministers,  not  as  converts,  but  as  brethren  of  the  same  faith. 
Consequently,  his  Church  has  not  seen  any  error  in  the  doctrinal 
intolerance  of  those  foreign  Presbyterian  creeds.  This,  therefore, 
settles  that  question. 

He  has  said,  that  when  Presbyterians  teach  that  God  has  given 
them  a  divine  commission  to  "remove  all  false  worship,"  the 
phrase  does  not  me^n  force.  Its  meaning  can  be  determined  only 
by  the  intention  or  understanding  of  those  who  framed  the  creed. 
Did  they  mean  that  this  doctrine  should  be  understood  to  autho- 
rize employment  of  coercion  by  the  state  ?  I  answer,  that  they 
did ;  and  I  shall  proceed  to  prove  it. — The  Presbyterians  had  the 
povver  of  the  state,  during  the  whole  time  of  the  session  of  that 
Assembly,  by  whom  the  Confession  of  Faith  was  drawn  up.  They 
had  an  opportunity  oi proving  what  it  meant,  on  the  subject  of 
conscience,  toleration,  &c.  Doctor  Lightfoot  informed  the  House 
of  Commons,  on  this  subject,   that   "  certainly  the  devil   in   the 


501 

conscience  might  be,  yea,  must  be  bound  by  the  civil  magis- 
trate." (1) 

In  order  to  show  its  meaning,  we  have  the  fact,  that  in  1645, 
they  published  an  ordinance,  forbidding  the  use  of  the  Episcopal 
COMMON  PRAYER-BOOK,  uot  onlv  in  placcs  of  "  pubUc  worship," 
but  also  "  IN  ANY  PRIVATE  PLACE  OR  FAMILY,"  under 
the  penalties  of  "  FINES  AND  IMPRISONMENT."  (2)  This 
is  what  was  meant  by  "removing  ^W  false  ivorship.'"  In  the 
same  year,  they  made  Lawrence  Clarkson,  a  Baptist,  renounce 
his  error  of  baptizing  adult  persons,  for  which  exercise  of  the 
rights  of  conscience  they  had  kept  him  for  six  months  in  a  dun- 
geon. (3)  In  January  of  the  next  year,  the  "  Presbyterian  min- 
isters," says  Neal, "prevailed  with  the  Lord  Mayor,  and 

Court  of  Aldermen,  to  join  with  them  in  presenting  to  Parliament, 
an  Address," — "for  a  speedy  settlement  of  Church  govern- 
ment, ACCORDING  to  THE  COVENANT,  AND  THAT  NO  TOLERA- 
TION MIGHT  BE  GIVEN  to  Popery,  prelacy,  superstition, 

HERESY,  PROFANENESS,  OR  ANYTHING  CONTRARY  TO  SOUND  DOCTRINE, 
AND    THAT    ALL    PRIVATE    ASSEMBLIES    MIGHT   BE    RESTRAINED."  (4) 

They  held  that  "  toleration  was,  and  would  be  a  root  of  gall  and 
bitterness;"  that  it  was  "  soul-poison;"  "a  sword  in  the  hands  of 
a  madman  ;"  "  a  city  of  refuge  in  men's  conscience,  for  the  devil 
to  fly  to."  (5)  "  The  whole  Scots'  nation,"  demanded  of  the  Par- 
liament of  England,  that  the  civil  sanction  might  be  added  to  sup- 
port the  Westminster  creed,  "AS  THE  DIVINES  HAD  AD- 
VISED ;"  and  what  that  advice  was,  may  be  gathered  from  the 
fact,  that  they  conclude  with   the  hope  "  that  the   piety  and 

WISDOM  OF  THE  HONOURABLE  HoUSES,  WILL  NEVER  ADMIT  TOLERA- 
TION OF  ANY  SECTS  OR  SCHISMS,  CONTRARY  TO    OUR    SOLEMN  LEAGUE 

AND  COVENANT."  (6)  Again  we  find  them  complaining,  that  "con- 
gregations were  ALLOWED"  to  judge  for  themselves,  in  matters 
of  religion,  and  beseeching  Parliament,  "  that  all  separate  congrega- 
tions may  he  suppressed  ;  that  all  such  separatists,  who  conform  not 
to  the  public  discipliiie,  may  be  declared  against;  that  no  person 
disaffected  to  the  Presbyterial  government  set  forth  by  Parlia- 
ment, may  be  employed  in  any  place  of  public  trust,"  &c.  (7) 
They  presented  a  petition  to  the  king  at  Newcastle,  in  which 
among  other  laws  for  the  grinding  of  conscience,  they  required 
that  the  Episcopal  religion  should  be  utterly  abolished  by  laio, 
and  that  a  law  should  be  passed  to  sanction  the  kidnapping  of 
Catholic  children,  in  order  to  educate  them  "  in  the  Protestant 
religion."  (8)  In  another  petition  to  the  Parliament,  they  entreat 
that  "ALL  SEPARATE  CONGREGATIONS,  THE  VERY 
NURSERIES  OF  DAMNABLE  HERETICS,  MAY  BE  SUP- 

( 1 )  Crosby,  vol.  i.  p.  1 70.  (2)  Neal's  Hist,  of  Pur.,  vol.  iii.  p.  171. 

(3)  Crosby.  (4)  Neal,  vol.  iii.  p.  291. 

(5)  Ibid.  p.  31,3.  lc^)  Ibid.  p.  314. 

(7)  Ibid.  p.  329.  (8)  Ibid.  p.  .332. 


502 

PRESSED  ;  AND  THAT  AN  ORDINANCE  BE  MADE  FOR 
THE  EXEMPLARY  PUNISHMENT  OF  HERETICS,  AND 
SCHISMATICS,"  &c.  (1)  The  Parliament,  "  ^o  satisfy  the 
petitioners,''^  says  Neal,  declared  their  resolution  to  proceed 
against  "  all  such  ministers,  and  others,  as  shall  PUBLISH,  or 
MAINTAIN  BY  PREACHING,  WRITING,  PRINTING,  or  any 
other  way,  anything  against,  or  in  derogation  of  Church  gov- 
ernment,'''' (Presbyterianisra.)  (2)  The  celebrated  Edwards,  in 
the  Preface  to  his  Gangrsena,  lays  down  the  principle  and  mean- 
ing of  the  commandment  about  "  removing  all  false  worship," 
which  is  still  in  the  gentleman's  Confession  of  Faith.  "  Now," 
says  he,  addressing  the  civil  rulers,  "  a  connivance  at,  and  suf- 
fering WITHOUT  rUNISHMENT,  SUCH  '  FALSE  DOCTRINES,'  AND  DISOR- 
DERS, PROVOKES  God  to  send  judgments.    A  TOLERATION  doth 

ECLIPSE  THE  GLORY  OF  THE  MOST  EXCELLENT  REFORMATION,  AND 
MAKES  THESE  SINS  TO  BE  THE  SINS  OF  THE  LEGISLATURE  THAT 
COUNTENANCES  THEM.  A  MAGISTRATE  SHOULD  USE  COERCIVE  POWER 
TO  PUNISH  AND  SUl-PRESS  EVILS,  AS  APPEARS  FROM  THE  EXAMPLE  OF 

Eli."(3)  Among  liie  charges  to  prove  the  necessity  for  persecu- 
tion, he  mentions  that  one  of  the  Independents  had  the  impiety 
to  pray  ''^two  or  three  times,  that  Parliament  might  give  liberty 
to  tender  consciences.''''  (4)  When  the  Parliament  was  in  danger 
from  the  growing  strength  of  the  army,  the  Scotch  Presbyterians 
being  invoked  by  their  English  brethren,  ^* published  a  declara- 
tion, in  the  name  of  the  kirk,  and  luhole  kingdom,  wherein  they 
engage,  by  a  solemn  oath,  to  establish  the  Presbyterian  govern- 
ment in  England," and  declare  against  "  all  toleration  and 

liberty  of  conscience."  (5) 

The  Scotch  Commissioners  in  London  were  remonstrating,  in 
the  name  of  their  National  Church,  against  the  introduction  of  a 
"sinful  and  ungodly  toleration  in  the  matters  of  religion,"  whilst 
the  whole  body  of  the  English  Presbyterian  clergy,  in  their  offi- 
cial papers,  protested  against  the  schemes  of  Cromwell's  party, 
and  solemnly  declared,  "  that  they  detested  and  abhorred  tolera- 
tion." "  My  judgment,"  said  Baxter,  a  man  noted  in  his  day  for 
moderation,  "I  have  always  freely  made  known.  I  abhor  un- 
limited liberty  or  toleration  of  all."  "Toleration,"  said  Edwards, 
another  distinguished  divine,  "  will  make  the  kingdom  a  chaos,  a 
Babel,  another  Amsterdam,  a  Jordan,  an  Egypt,  a  Babylon.  Tol- 
eration is  the  grand  work  of  the  Devil,  his  master-piece,  and  chief 
engine  to  uphold  his  tottering  kingdom.  It  is  a  most  compendi- 
ous, ready,  sure  way  to  destroy  all  religion,  lay  all  waste,  and 
bring  in  all  evil.  It  is  a  most  transcendant,  catholic,  and  funda- 
mental evil.     As  original  sin  is  the  fundamental  sin,  having  the 

(1)  Neal,  vol.  iii.  p.  364.  (2)  Ibid. 

(3)  Ibid.  Append.  (4)  Ibid. 

(5)  Ibid.  p.  400. 


503 

seed  and  spawn  of  all  sins  in  it,  so  toleration  hath  all  errors  in  it, 
and  all  evils."  (1) 

These,  and  many  other  authorities  that  might  be  adduced,  prove 
unanswerably  the  meaning-  of  the  Presbyterian  commandment,  as 
it  was  understood  by  the  Westminster  Assembly,  that  drew  it  up. 
The  meaning,  therefore,  in  their  minds,  was  simply  this — that  it 
was  the  duty  of  those  who  had  the  civil  power,  "  according  to 
each  one's  place  and  calling,"  to  support  the  Presbyterian  Church 
alone,  and  to  make  penal  laws,  and  execute  them  too,  against  all 
those  who,  in  the  exercise  of  their  judgment,  should  adopt,  or 
maintain,  any  other  religion  or  mode  of  worship  under  the  "much 
abused  name  of  liberty  of  conscience."  The  gentleman  may  say, 
that  Presbyterians,  in  this  country,  since  the  Constitution,  have 
given  that  commandment  a  new  interpretation ;  but  he  must  have 
been  extremely  unacquainted  with  the  times,  history,  and  circum- 
stances of  that  doctrine  as  first  promulgated,  when  he  ventured  to 
say  that  meant  only  "  moral  influence,  the  press,  preaching,  the 
Bible,"  &c.  It  meant  FINES,  PRISONS,  and  DEATH.  Under 
its  original  and  TRUE  "meaning,"  Catholics,  Episcopalians, 
Baptists,  Quakers  and  others  were  to  be  punished  by  whatever 
laws  and  penalties  the  "ordinance  of  magistracy"  might  find  ne- 
cessary for  the  "REMOVAL    OF    ALL    FALSE    WORSHIP    AND    ALL    THE 

MONUMENTS  OF  IDOLATRY."     Does  the  gentleman  deny  this?  Here 
is  the  proof.     In  1648,  "the  Presbyterian  members,"  says  Neal 

"finding  they  had  the  superiority  in  the  house,  resumed  their 

courage,  and  took  the  opportunity  of  discovering  their  PRINCI- 
PLES and  SPIRIT...."  How  did  they  discover  their  principles 
and  spirit?  By  passing  a  law  against  heretics,  as  they  called 
them,  but  in  reality  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  second  command- 
ment, as  it  still  stands  in  the  American  Presbyterian  Confession 
of  Faith.  It  was  passed  on  the  2d  of  May,  1648:  and  ordains 
*Uhat  all  persons  who  shall  willingly  maintain,  publish,  or  de- 
fend, by  PREACHING  or  WRITING,  the  following  heresies  with 
obstinacy,  shall,  upon  complaint,  and  proof  ,  by  the  oaths  of  two 
witnesses,  before  two  justices  of  the  peace,  or  confession  of  the 
party,  be  committed  to  prison,  without  bail  or  mainprize,  till 
the  next  gaol  delivery  ;  and  in  case  the  indictment  shall  then  be 
found,  and  the  party  upon  his  tried  shall  not  abjure  his  said 
error,  and  his  defence  and  maintenance  of  the  same,  HE  SHALL 
SUFFER  THE  PAINS  OF  DEATH,  AS  IN  CASE  OF 
FELONY,  WITHOUT  BENEFIT  OF  CLERGY...."  This 
was  evidence  of  zeal  against  "all  false  religion."  You  ob- 
serve, sir,  the  inhuman  features  of  this  law  independent  of  the 
"pains  of  death  without  benefit  of  clergy."  1.  The  oaths  of 
"  two  witnesses"  were  sufficient.  2.  The  exercise  of  the  rights 
of  conscience  was  deemed,  like  murder,  too  grievous  a  crime  to 
admit  of  "bail  or  mainprize."     3.  It  did  not^Uow  even  the  pri- 

(1)  Verplank's  Discourses,  j)p.  23,  34. 


504 

vilcge  of  JURY.  4.  Neither  did  it  allow  the  liberty  of  appeal, 
Presbyteriuu  legislators, — Presbyterian  witnesses, — Presbyterian 
judges, — Presbyterian  hangmen, — having  first  the  "command- 
ment of  God,"  and  next  the  "law  of  the  land,"  were  thus  doubly 
bound,  "  according  to  each  one^s  place  and  ccdling,  (mind  that,) 
to  remove  all  false  worship  and  all  the  monuments  of  idolatry  ^ 

The  gentleman  may  say  that  no  one  suffered  under  this  Pres- 
byterian law.  But  this  is  easily  accounted  for.  Cromwell  drove 
these  spiritual  despots  from  power,  before  they  had  an  opportunity 
of  putting  it  in  execution.  It  is  the  only  act  of  his  life  for  which 
posterity  have  reason  to  be  grateful  to  that  profound  hypocrite — 
who  was  himself  a  disciple  of  the  Presbyterian  school,  and  did 
honour  to  the  tuition.  But  supposing  that  the  Presbyterians  had 
remained  in  power,  and  it  were  our  misfortune  to  live  under  their 
mild,  tolerant,  and  liberty-loving  principles,  what  then  would  be 
the  fact?  Why  the  fact  would  be,  that  the  UNITARIANS,  UNI- 
VERSALISTS,  SWP^DENBORGIANS,  DEISTS,  and  all  those 
who  come  under  the  denominations  of  INFIDELS  would  be,  ipso 
facto,  under  sentence  of  "DEATH  WITHOUT  BENEFIT  OF 
CLERGY  !" — A  murderer,  even  then  would  be  allowed  a  clergy- 
man on  the  scaffold,  or  at  the  gallows,  but  a  heretic  of  the  above 
description  should  die  "  without  benefit  of  clergy."  By  the  same 
"ordinance"  the  DUNGEON  was  provided  for  another  class  of 
heretics — which  class  embraces  in  the  actual  state  of  the  religious 
world,  all  Catholics,  all  Episcopalians,  all  Methodists,  all  Bap- 
tists, and  all  other  denominations,  present  and  future,  except 
predestiyiarian  Presbyterians.  Does  the  gentleman  venture  to  deny 
this  ?  Let  him  consult  the  ordinance  in  Neal,  (Vol.  iii.  p.  484-5,) 
and  the  list  of  errors  specifically  enumerated  as  constituting  the 
"false  worship"  against  which  the  ordinance  was  levelled,  "ac- 
cording to  each  one's  place  and  calling."  I  give  the  gentleman 
chapter  and  verse,  day  and  date,  for  my  facts.  Neither  do  I  draw 
my  authorities  from  Tristam  Shandy,  or  renegades  from  his  reli- 
gion. The  writings  of  the  most  respectable  Protestant,  and  even 
Presbyterian  ministers  and  fathers  are  the  fountains  from  which  I 
derive  my  testimony  of  facts,  and  facts  too  that  should  make  a 
Presbyterian  blush,  whenevei  any  one,  (forgetting  who  is  pre- 
sent,) happens  to  mention  the  words  "liberty  of  conscience." 

He  may  say  that  this  was  an  act  of  Parliament; — for  which  his 
doctrine  is  not  responsible.  Such  an  assertion  would  be  a  fallacy. 
His  doctrine  obliges  "ALL  its  members,"  and  each,  "  according 
to  his  place  and  calling''^— -^^  to  remove  false  worship."  So  that 
a  member  of  Parliament  then,  or  a  member  of  Congress  now,  is 
bound  to  use  his  official,  as  well  as  personal,  influence  to  secure 
this  end.  The  Constitution  clothes  him  with  power  to  be  used 
exclusively  in  support  of  the  provisions  contained  in  that  bill  of 
rights.  Hence  he  is  bound,  not  only  not  to  "  remove,"  but  to  pro- 
tect, and  consequently,  in  so  much,  preserve  "all  false  religions 
and  all  the   monuments  of  idolatry."     And  yet  he  professes   a 


505 

creed,  the  doctrines  of  vvliicli  oblige  him,  by  a  commandment  of 
God,  not  only  to  remove  them,  but  even  to  use  his  official  power 
and  influence  for  that  purpose  — "  according  to  his  place 
AND  CALLING."  Is  there  no  contradiction  here?  Is  he  faith- 
ful to  the  Constitution? — Then  he  is  a  traitor  to  his  creed,  by 
disobeying  what  it  commands.  Is  he  true  to  his  creed? — Does 
he  labour,  '•''  according  to  his  place  and  calling,^''  to  "remove"  all 
those  religions,  which  the  Presbyterian  Catechism,  Book  of  Doc- 
trines, arrogantly  denominates  "false  worships?"  Then  he  is  a 
dangerous  man  to  be  entrusted  with  the  rights  of  a  free  people, 
who  claim  to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates  of 
their  conscience.  The  members  of  Parliament,  therefore,  in  pass- 
ing the  above  ordinance,  were  only  obeying  the  commandment  of 
God,  AS  Presbyterians,  "according  to  their  place  and  calling." 
But  again,  it  is  remarkable  that  this  inhuman  law  was  passed 
while  the  Confession  of  Faith  drawn  up  by  the  divines  of  Westmin- 
ster, was  actually  under  consideration  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, by  whom  it  was  approved  on  the  twentieth  of  the  following 
month.  Not  only  this,  but  during  the  whole  session  of  the  As- 
sembly there  was  a  perpetual  "billing  and  cooing"  between  them 
and  the  houses  of  Parliament;  the  divines  instructing  the  legisla- 
tors to  make  laws  against  heretics  and  heresies;  and  the  legisla- 
tors instructing  the  divines  to  make  doctrines,  by  which  Presby- 
terianism  might  be  uppermost,  with  its  iron  heel  on  the  necks  of  all 
other  denominations. 

From  all  this,  therefore,  the  meaning  of  the  second  command- 
ment, as  expounded  by  the  known  and  professed  intolerance  of 
those  who  made  it,  is  clear,  and  undeniable.  The  gentleman  did 
wrong  to  deny  it.  He  should  have  known  something  of  its  his- 
tory, and  not  have  put  me  to  the  trouble  of  unfolding  it.  If  the 
meaning  of  a  book  is  to  be  determined  by  the  meaning  of  its 
authors,  then  this  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  was  knowingly  and  intentionally  framed  to  secure  spiritual 
domination  to  the  sect  of  Presbyterians,  and  to  crush  and  perse- 
cute all  other  denominations  by  means  of  the  civil  sword  and  the 
power  of  the  magistrate.  God,  who  puts  limits  to  the  wickedness 
of  men,  permitted  them  to  remain  in  power  just  long  enough  to 
show,  by  the  above  ordinance,  that  their  principles  should  make 
them  a  terror  to  mankind.  And  when  they  had  prepared  their 
engine  of  cruelty,  to  make  legal  slaughter  for  the  vindication  of 
his  honour  and  the  true  religion,  as  extensive  as  their  civil  domi- 
nation, he  transferred  to  other  hands  the  sword  on  which  they  had 
seized  by  usurpation,  and  of  which  they  were  preparing  to  make 
such  bloody  use. 

The  only  question  remaining  is,  whether  the  Presbyterians  in 
this  age,  and  in  this  country,  are  at  liberty  to  interpret  their  stan- 
dard of  doctrine  differently  from  the  sense  and  meaning  intended 
by  the  Westminster  divines.     1  say  they  are  not.     And  for  the 

64 


506 

])roof  I  refer  to  llie  whole  reasoning  on  which  it  is  attempted  ta 
justify  the  condemnation  of  Mr.  Barnes.  His  crime  (if  crime  it 
bej  has  consisted  exckisively  in  his  giving  a  new  interpretation 
to  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Therefore,  the  /rwe,  orthodox  mean- 
ing of  the  Presbyterian  doctrines,  is  the  meaning  in  which  they 
were  held  by  the  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY— what  that 
was,  we  have  seen  above,  in  the  ordinance  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred ; — and  now,  sir,  I  leave  it  to  you,  to  this  audience,  and  to 
the  public  at  large,  to  say  whether  this  doctrine  is  not  opposed  to 
hoth  civil  and  religious  liberty. 

If  Presbyterians  had  the  power  to  carry  it  out,  and  were  faith- 
ful to  what  they  prof  ens  to  regard  as  one  of  God's  command- 
ments, I  ask  you  whether  this  doctrine  would  not  be  fatal  to  all 
that  we  understand  by  "  rights  of  conscience."  Whilst  these 
Presbyterians  were  thus  making  arrangements  to  lord  it  over  men's 
souls,  and  bodies,  and  property,  in  England,  what  was  going  on 
in  Ireland  ?  What  were  the  officers  of  this  Parliament  doing  in 
that  ill-fated  country  ?  They  were  not  only  making  it  lawful  to 
commit  murder  and  assassination,  but  the  murderer  and  the 
assassin,  in  presenting  a  human  head  at  their  council  of  bloody 
received  as  a  PENSION  the  reward  which  was  appointed  for 
killing  a  WOLF!!  (I) 

It  is  true,  that  the  murderer  was  required  to  swear  that  it  waa 
the  head  of  a  "Catholic  priest" — and  if  he  swore  that  oath,  no 
matter  whose  head  it  was,  he  received  his  wages!  Thus,  the 
conditions  of  the  service  were  so  regulated  that  the  premium  was 
an  incentive  to  murder  and  perjury  at  the  same  time  !  And  the 
man  holding  and  glorying  in  the  doctrines  of  the  men  under  whom 
and  by  whom  these  scenes  of  horror  ayid  blood  made  the  earth 
sick — -that  man  pushes  himself  forward,  to  make  a  fuss  about 
"civil  and  religious  liberty!"  Let  him  read  the  history  of  his 
church.  We  have  seen  what  it  was  in  Switzerland,  the  Low 
Countries,  Scotland,  and  every  other  country  where  Presbyterians 
possessed  civil  power.  We  have  seen  what  it  was  in  England,  by 
the  verym,en  who  made  the  gentleman^ s  Confession  of  Ihith,  Sind 
what  it  would  have  been,  if  that  country  had  continued  to  be 
cursed  much  longer  with  their  spiritual  and  temporal  domination 
and  despotism.  In  the  midst  of  all  this,  in  their  hypocritical  con- 
fessions of  sins,  they  never  failed  to  ask  pardon  of  Heaven  for  the 
sin  of  "  TOLERATION  ! !"  And  whilst  they  were  themselves 
under  penal  disabilities  for  conscience'  sake — whilst  they  were 
petitioning  for  their  oivn  rights  of  conscience,  they  never  failed 
to  represent,  as  one  of  their  greatest  grievances,  that  the  penal  laws 
were  not  enforced  rigorously  enough  against  the  Catholics. 
They  held  that  God  was  angry  with  them,  for  the  culpable  mercy 
of  the  government  in  not  torturing  the  Catholics  with  the  rigorous 

(1)  Ourry's  Review  of  the  Civil  Wars  in  Ireland,  vol.  ii.  p.  11. 


507 

execution  of  the  persecuting  laws.  These  laws  I  have  given  a 
brief  outline  of,  in  my  last  speech  on  the  former  question,  to  which 
I  refer. 

The  gentleman  has  told  you  that  all  this  has  been  changed  in 
this  country.  The  CONSTITUTION  has  indeed  changed  the 
toorking  of  the  system — but  it  did  not  change  the  principle  of  its 
doctrine.  We  have  seen  what  that  principle  is,  as  it  respects 
*'  false  worship."  The  General  Assembly  holds,  even  at  this  day, 
communion  with  the  establishment  and  intolerance  of  the  Scotch 
Creed,  and  the  Dutch  Confession.  And  this  fact  proves  what  the 
gentleman,  with  great  perseverance,  but  with  fatal  forgetfulness  of 
history  and  facts,  has  attempted  to  deny.  The  creed  of  the  Dutch 
Reformed  Church,  of  which  Dr.  Brownlee  is  minister,  teaches,  in 
this  country  and  against  the  Constitution,  that  it  is  the 
"office"  of  the  MAGISTRATES  to  take  measures  whereby  to 
"  REMOVE  and  PREVENT  ALL  IDOLATRY  and  FALSE 
WORSHIP." 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  manifest  that  the  assertion  made 
by  the  gentleman,  viz.,  that  in  order  ''  to  accept  a  civil  establish- 
ment the  Presbyterian  doctrine  must  change,"  is,  like  a  great 
many  of  his  assertions — not  to  be  depended  on.  It  is  not  only  in 
opposition  to  the  bonds  of  communion  between  his  Church  in  this 
country,  and  the  sister  churches  that  are  "  civilly  established"  in 
Europe,  but  it  is  in  opposition  to  his  Confession  of  Faith,  in 
which  he  is  instructed  to  pray  for  that  very  establishment,  under 
the  article—'*  THY  KINGDOM  COME."  At  page  309  of  the 
Confession,  the  Presbyterians  are  instructed  to  pray  that  "the 

church may  be  countenanced  and  MAINTAINED  by  the 

civil  magistrate.^^  The  same  Book  of  Doctrines  decides  (page  3) 
that  "  the  Church"  is  composed  of  those  "  who  profess  the  true 
religion ;"  and  it  decides  also,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  the  "  true 
religion"  is  the  Presbyterian  religion.  Therefore  it  is  manifest 
that  the  Presbyterian  Church  not  only  does  not  refuse,  but  actually 
PRAYS  for,  and  aspires  to,  "  a  civil  establishment."  For  what 
else  but  a  "  civil  establishment"  does  it  mean  when  it  claims  to 
be  not  only  "countenanced,"  but  MAINTAINED,  by  the 
"CIVIL  MAGISTRATE?"  That  the  gentleman  should  be 
ignorant  of  the  history  of  his  Church  did  not  surprise  me;  but 
that  he  should  be  ignorant  of  its  very  doctrines,  actually  and 
openly  professed  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  is  more  than 
I  expected.  If  he  was  not  ignorant  of  it,  how  can  we  account 
for  his  saying  that  "  in  order  to  accept  a  civil  establishment  the 
Presbyterian  doctrine  must  change?"  His  own  Catechism  refutes 
him,  and  shows,  as  well  by  its  doctrine,  as  its  history,  that  it  was 
made  expressly  for  a  "  civil  establishment,''''  and  is  essentially 
"  out  of  joint"  till  it  shall  be  "  MAINTAINED  BY  THE 
CIVIL  MAGISTRATE." 

Now,  sir,  is  this  constitutional?     Here  is  the  doctrine,  ready 


508 

to  produce  the  same  efiects  here,  that  it  has  done  in  all  other 
countries.  I  have  pointed  out  some  of  those  effects.  Let  the 
gentleman  liimself  meditate  on  the  facts  and  arguments  that 
iiave  been  adduced.  I  do  not  ask  him  to  ansiver  them;  he  has 
already,  and  from  the  beginning,  had  the  good  sense  not  to  expose 
liimself  by  attempting  to  refute  them.  But  I  wish  him  to  meditate 
on  them.  And  to  assist  him,  let  him  bear  in  mind  the  following 
considerations: — 1.  That  John  Calvin  was  the  founder  of  his 
religion.  2.  That  it  was  propagated,  not  by  peace  and  persua- 
sion, but  by  tumult  and  riot  in  the  various  countries  in  which  it 
prevailed.  3.  That  it  preached  and  fought  its  way  into  civil 
power,  by  invading  the  rights  of  others.  4.  That  when  in  power, 
it  persecuted  in  every  instance  ivithoiit  exception.  5.  That  all 
otber  denominations  of  Protestants  were  the  victims  of  its  perse- 
cution, as  well  as  Catholics.     6.  That  it  made  "  ex  post  factum" 

laws    EXPRESSLY  FOR    THE    PURPOSE   OF  PERSECUTING.       7.    That  itS 

members  were,  at  all  times,  comparatively  few.  8.  And  its 
enjoyment  of  the  civil  sword  limited  to  brief  periods.  9.  That 
it  had  itself  suffered  for  conscience'  sake,  and  should  have  learnt 
7nercy  from  experience.  10.  That  notwithstanding  all  these  ad- 
verse circumstances,  it  shed  the  blood  of  man,  and  made  laws  for 
shedding  it  in  torrents,  in  every  country  where  it  had  power  to 
tnake  and  execute  them.  11.  That  it  justified  all  these  atrocities 
on  the  plea  that  God  had  authorized,  nay,  commanded  it,  "  to 
remove  all  false  religions,  and  all  the  monuments  of"  what  it  was 
impudently  pleased  to  nickname  "  idolatry" — meaning  thereby 
the  religion  of  the  great  society  of  Christians  of  all  nations  from 
the  time  of  the  apostles  to  the  present  day.  Let  him  meditate  on 
it,  in  connexion  with  these  circumstances,  and  it  will  appear  that 
"  eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  hath  it  entered  into 
the  heart  of  man  to  conceive,"  (so  far  as  the  civil  and  religious 
rights  are  concerned)  any  thing  more  intolerant,  tyrannical,  per- 
secuting, bloodthirsty  and  remorseless,  than  the  dark  spirit  which 
John  Calvin  and  John  Knox  breathed,  as  the  living  soul,  into  the 
Presbyterian  doctrines.  Let  the  gentleman  meditate  upon  the 
facts. — in  Switzerland,  France,  the  Netherlands,  Scotland,  Eng- 
land, Ireland  and  America. 

The  hurry  of  arrangement,  and  the  disorder  and  confusion  by 
which  the  gentleman  has  laboured  to  keep  the  real  question  out 
of  view,  have  necessarily  prevented  me  from  doing  entire  justice 
to  a  subject,  on  which  too  little  is  understood.  But  this  I  say, 
that  the  man,  who,  in  the  name  of  human  nature,  and  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  and  civil  and  religious  liberty,  should  write  a  regular 
history  of  Presbyterianism,  especially  of  its  persecuting  doctrines, 
would  render  an  incalculable  service  to  his  country.  He  would 
open  the  eyes  of  thousands;  he  would  tear  away  the  mask  of 
hypocrisy  under  which  Presbyterian  ambition  is  now,  and  has 
been  for  years,  labouring  for  a  political  predominancy,  whereby 


509 

to  control  this  nation  from  north  to  south,  and  from  east  to  west. 
Finding  the  stoppage  of  the  Sunday  mail  too  knotty  a  block  for 
their  entering-wedge,  they  have  changed  their  tactics,  but  not 
their  object.  They  think  that  by  using  the  NO  POPERY  cry,  as 
a  feeler,  they  have  discovered  the  "  soft  place"  in  the  head  of 
public  opinion,  and  are  trying  to  hunt  down  the  Catholics  to  the 
tune  of  "  hurra  for  religious  liberty."  It  will  not  do,  sir.  Most 
of  the  other  denominations  in  this  country,  are  satisfied  to  enjoy 
their  own  Hberty  of  conscience,  without  invading  that  sacred 
right  in  the  person  of  their  neighbours,  even  though  these  should 
be  Catholics.  Not  so  the  true  blue  Presbyterian.  He  professes 
a  creed  whose  doctrine  of  absolute  election  removes  all  apprehen- 
sion for  his  own  sins,  but  leaves  him  to  feel  remorse  for  all  the 
sins  of  all  his  neighbours.  Now  I  owe  it  to  truth  and  candour  to 
state  my  conviction,  that  there  are  hundreds  and  thousands  of 
Presbyterians  who  are  utterly  unacquainted  with  the  hereditary 
and  inherent  intolerance  of  their  creed — who  would  be  among  the 
first  to  resist  the  spirit  of  those  doctrines,  as  exemplified  in  the 
sectarian  and  political  aspirations  of  some  of  their  own  ministers. 
Men  who,  as  Americans,  feel  humbled  at  the  fact  that  there  is  in 
their  country  enough  of  the  spirit  of  persecution,  to  destroy  the 
property  and  endanger  the  lives  of  defenceless  ladies,  for  no  other 
crime,  except  that  of  worshipping  Almighty  God  according  to 
the  dictates  of  their  conscience!  But  the  gentleman  is  not  of  the 
number;  his  associates.  Dr.  Brownlee  &  Co.  are  not  to  be  num- 
bered with  those  real  friends  of  civil  and  religious  liberty. 

I  must  now  notice  some  of  the  miscellaneous  matter  of  his 
speech.  And,  1.  HIS  PERSONALITY  AND  ABUSE.  After 
having  expended  every  epithet  of  contempt — "  Jesuit,"  "  Papist," 
*'  Foreigner,"  &c.  &c.  he  winds  up  with  the  charge  of  "  malignity." 
I  am  not  surprised  at  all  this ;  it  is  a  part  of  the  system  which  he 
represents.  During  ten  years  that  I  have  resided  in  this  city, 
I  have  had  intercourse  with  society  of  all  denominations ;  I  have 
preached  nearly  every  Sunday  during  that  time,  oftentimes  on 
controversy,  when  hundreds  of  Protestants  were  present,  and 
I  venture  to  assert  that  I  have  not  done  one  action  or  used  one 
expression,  in  the  pulpit  or  out  of  it,  to  warrant  the  charge  of 
"  malignity."  I  have  wounded  no  man's  feelings ;  I  have  ridi- 
culed no  man's  religion;  I  have  injured  no  man's  character. 
I  have  the  consolation  to  believe,  therefore,  that  in  the  commu- 
nity where  I  am  known,  the  charge  of  "  malignity"  will  recoil 
on  its  author,  and  not  affect  me.  I  am  proud  to  believe,  and  have 
reason  to  believe,  that,  though  a  Catholic  and  a  priest,  I  stand  as 
high  in  public,  even  Protestant,  estimation,  as  the  gentleman  him- 
self. The  secret  of  his  accusation  is,  that,  having  forced  himself 
on  my  notice,  and  compelled  me  to  enter  into  an  oral  disputation, 
I  have  taught  him  a  few  facts  respecting  his  religion,  as  well 
as   mine,  with  which  he  was   unacquainted  before.     Not  only 


510 

this,  I  established  arguments  on  the  basis  of  those  facts,  which 
he  is  unable  to  answer.  This  was  very  "  malignant"  to  be  sure. 
He  says  I  directed  all  my  "  malignant  attacks  against  the  Presby- 
terian religion."  Certainly:  what  had  I  to  do  with  any  other? 
But  greater  men  than  I  have  been  honoured  with  this  species  of 
Calvinistic  argument.  The  appellation  of  "  hogs,"  was  among 
the  gentlest  that  Calvin  himself  could  bestow  on  his  theological 
or  literary  antagonists.  About  the  time  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  the  Episcopalians  of  England  were  known  in  the 
vocabulary  of  the  Presbyterians  as  the  "  malignants,"  or  the 
*'  MALIGNANT  FACTION."  When  Johu  Wcslcy  ventured  to  preach 
a  sermon  on  "  free  grace,"  in  opposition  to  Calvin's  decrees, 
Mr.  Toplady,  a  worthy  son  of  Geneva,  described  him,  as  "  hatch- 
ing blasphemy" — "  having  a  forehead  petrified,  and  impervious 
TO  A  blush" — a  "shameless  traducer."(l)  But  the  best  of  the 
joke  is,  that  he  charges  me  with  being  personal  and  abusive ! ! 
It  is  true  that  I  have  had  to  prove  his  assertions  false,  continually, 
and  to  expose  his  vitiated  citation  of  authors,  as  well  as  his  bad 
reasoning.  Now  he  ought  not  to  mistake  this  for  abuse.  The 
fault  was  his,  mine  was  the  duty.  It  is  true,  that  I  have  some- 
times retorted,  but  with  milder  words,  and  perhaps  more  point. 

2.  Morality.  He  assumes  that  Protestant  countries  are  more 
moral  than  Catholic  countries.  Is  this  the  fact?  In  the  first 
place  we  have  the  testimony  of  the  Reformers  themselves,  show- 
ing that  those  who  embraced  the  new  doctrines  became  less  moral 
than  they  had  been.  Luthei  says,  "  we  see  that,  through  the 
tnalice  of  the  devil,  men  are  noiv  more  avaricious,  more  cruel, 
more  disorderly,  more  insolent,  and  much  more  wicked,  than 
they  ivere  under  popery. ^\2)  Musculus  says,  "  If  any  one  wish 
to  see  a  rnultitude  of  knaves,  disturbers  of  the  public  peace,  ^^c. 
let   him   go   to   a   city   where   the  gospel  is  preached  in  its 

purity. ^\3) The  testimony  of  all  the  other  Reformers,  as 

they  are  called,  is  to  the  same  effect.  Secondly,  their  doctrine 
was  adverse  to  morals.  The  Scripture  says  we  are  saved  by 
faith,  but  this  was  not  sufficient,  and  they  accordingly  corrupted 
the  text  by  inserting  "  faith  ALONE."  Thirdly,  the  decrees  of 
the  Presbyterian  religion,  setting  forth,  that  God  has  "fore- 
ordained WHATSOEVER  COMES  TO  PASS,"  is  fatal  to  iDorals — by 
establishing  the  doctrine  that  the  crimes  of  the  wicked  were 
*'  fore-ordained,"  as  well  as  the  virtues  of  the  good.  Hence  the 
gentleman  is  flying  in  the  face  of  his  own  decrees,  whenever  he 
blames  immorality.  Fourthly,  the  gentleman's  estimate  of  mo- 
rality in  Catholic  countries  is  not  founded  on  observation ;  not  on 
criminal  statistics ;  not  on  impartial  history,  but  on  books  written 
in  the  spirit  of  Mrs.  Trollope,  and  Miss  Reed,  and  Miss  Maria 

(1)  See  Fletcher's  Checks,  vol.  4.  p.  71.  (2)  In  Postil.  Dom.  part  i. 

(3)  Muse.  Dom.  i.  Adv. 


511 

Monk,  combined.  Fifthly,  it  is  not  fair  to  compare  the  profligate 
portions  of  society  in  Catholic  countries,  with  the  religious  por- 
tions of  Protestant  lands.  But,  comparing  each  class  with  its 
corresponding  class,  it  will  be  found  that  the  Catholics  have  more 
piety,  and  are  of  a  more  amiable  character ;  that  they  have  more 
sanctity,  with  less  sanctimoniousness.  Finally,  that  knavery, 
intellectual  immorality,  the  general  system  of  swindling,  which 
in  the  large  cities  of  Protestant  countries  is  reduced  to  the  preci- 
sion of  a  science,  are  almost  unknown  in  Catholic  countries. 
The  corruption  of  the  heart  is  the  same  every  where;  but,  in 
confirmation  of  the  remark  I  have  just  made,  it  is  to  be  observed 
that  Protestant  countries  are  distinguished  by  two  vices — crimes 
in  particular  which  were  unknown  among  Christians  before  the 
Reformation,  and  are  still  almost  unknown  in  Catholic  countries — 
FORGERY  and  SUICIDE.  The  Calvinists  of  Holland,  rather  than 
lose  the  trade  of  Japan,  submit  to  a  ceremony  which  is  under- 
stood by  those  who  require  a  compliance,  to  be  a  renunciation 
of  Christ  and  his  religion — viz.,  "  trampling  on  the  cross." 
The  Catholics  gave  up  the  trade,  and  suffered  death  rather  than 
comply  with  it. 

3.  COMPARATIVE  WEALTH.  Here  the  gentleman  fur- 
nishes no  proof.  But  he  forgets  some  important  facts.  For  in- 
stance, that  in  Protestant  countries,  tl^e  disciples  of  Calvin,  at 
least,  appropriated  to  themselves  the  property  as  well  as  the  power 
of  the  Catholics,  whom  they  dispossessed  of  both.  So  it  was  in 
Scotland  and  England ;  heretics  and  idolaters  had  no  right  to  pro- 
perty. Hence,  the  wealth,  and  estates,  and  church  property  of 
Catholics,  were  seized  upon  as  a  ready  stock  in  trade  for  the  saints 
to  commence  with.  Ireland  remained  Catholic,  and  the  soil  was 
taken  three  different  times  from  its  owners,  to  enrich  the  ex- 
chequer of  Protestant  cupidity.  I  refer  to  the  penal  laws  cited  in 
my  last  speech  on  the  former  question,  to  show  that  the  poverty 
and  ignorance  of  the  Irish  are  the  effects  of  Protestant  persecu- 
tion. Plunder  was  made  lawful,  in  order  to  crush  them.  Edu- 
cation was  made  criminal  by  the  laws,  until,  within  a  few  years. 
They  preserved  their  integrity,  their  religion,  and  were  robbed  of 
every  thing  besides.  Their  mental  independence,  with  their 
poverty,  is  more  honourable  than  the  ill-gotten  wealth  and  infamy 
that  cling  to  their  oppressors.  The  gentleman,  therefore,  has  been 
unfortunate  in  his  allusion  to  the  wealth  of  Protestant  countries — 
especially  so  far  as  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland  are  concerned. 
He  ought  to  have  let  that  subject  rest. 

4.  CELIBACY  OF  THE  PRIESTS  AND  NUNS.  The 
manner  in  which  the  whole  class  of  writers  to  which  the  gentle- 
man belongs,  treat  this  topic,  and  mix  it  up  with  imputations  of 
lewdness,  betrays  the  diseased  state  of  their  own  imaginations, 
and  reminds  one  of  the  food  and  the  feast  of  the  hyena.  These 
uxorious  parsons,  who  study  the  daughters  of  the  Church,  in- 


512 

stead  of  "  the  fathers" — who,  in  times  of  pestilence,  take  refuge 
behind  the  breast-work  of  their  wives  and  children,  and  leave 
their  dying  members,  body  and  soul,  to  be  taken  care  of  by  the 
sisters  of  charity  and  priests,  these  are  the  men  who,  when  pesti- 
lence has  departed,  turn  round  to  taunt  us  with  celibacy,  and  argue 
as  ii  they  held  the  indulgence  of  lewdness  to  be  a  necessity  of  hu- 
man nature,  and  the  virtue  of  chastity  to  be  impossible  !  On  what 
data  do  they  build  such  a  conclusion?  It  must  be  either  on  in- 
nate depravity,  or  else  on  experience  among  their  own  people. 
But  in  neither  case  is  it  good  reasoning  to  make  the  conclusion 
general,  when  the  premises  are  only  particular.  At  all  events, 
the  gospel  of  Christ  makes  chastity  an  obligation;  and  there  is  no 
reason  why  it  should  be  more  difficult  for  priests  and  nuns,  than 

for  UNMARRIED  PERSONS   GENERALLY,  OF    BOTH    SEXES,  AND    OF    ALL 

DENOMINATIONS.  The  reputation  of  all  these,  therefore,  is  wound- 
ed by  the  shafts  of  base  suspicion  which  the  parsons  aim  at  the 
priests  and  nuns  alone.  They  would  not  allow  their  wives  and 
daughters  to  go  to  confession.  What  does  this  prove?  It  proves 
that,  from  whatever  source  they  may  have  derived  their  vile  esti- 
mate of  human  nature,  they  have  no  confidence  in  the  virtue  of  their 
wives  and  daughters,  any  more  than  in  that  of  the  priests !  But 
the  gentleman  says,  that  indelicate  questions  are  asked.  I  say, 
the  assertion  is  FALSE.  The  priest,  who  should  so  far  forget 
the  sacredness  of  his  ministry  as  to  abuse  the  confidence  of  the 
confessional,  is,  by  the  laws  of  the  Church,  degraded  from  of- 
fice FOR  life.  And,  in  Catholic  countries,  is  doomed  to  per- 
petual imprisonment  ON  bread  and  watfr.  Is  there  any  such 
protection  against  the  abuse  of  nightly  and  anxious-meetings, 
among  the  parsons  ?  I  believe  not.  Finally,  who  is  the  blame- 
less parson  among  them,  to  whom  we  cannot  oppose  as  blameless 
a  priest?  And  who  is  the  bad  priest  to  whom  we  cannot  oppose 
a  worse  parson  ?  Their  wives  have  not  been  able  to  shield  them, 
in  all  cases,  from  either  the  imputation  or  the  guilt  of  crime.  And 
among  them  the  instances  are  as  numerous  as  among  us.  For 
that  class  of  parsons  who  treat  the  subject  of  celibacy  as  the  gen- 
tleman has  done,  these  remarks  are  deemed  sufficient — to  the 
more  dignified  ministers  of  the  Protestant  churches  of  every  de- 
nomination they  are  not  intended  to  apply. 

5.  HIS  CONTRADICTIONS.  To  enumerate  these  in  de- 
tail, would  take  up  more  space  than  can  be  spared.  At  one  time, 
Catholics  wanted  only  power  and  numbers  to  destroy  the  Pro- 
testants, root  and  branch ;  at  another,  when  they  possessed  all 
power  and  numbers,  they  were  not  able  to  put  down  the  Reform- 
ers!  At  one  time,  we  are  charged  with  having  exalted  matrimony 
to  the  rank  of  a  sacrament ;  at  another,  we  are  charged  with  treat- 
ing it  contemptuously !  At  one  time,  the  Church  is  accused  for 
not  punishing  the  real  or  pretended  vices  of  the  clergy,  and  re- 
moving the  scandals  given ;   at  another,  she  is  accused  of  tyranny 


513 

for  having  made  laws  exj)ressly  for  this  purpose.'  Now,  the 
Pope  is  represented  as  commanding  the  world,  and  our  liberties 
are  gone  it"  he  only  raise  his  little  finger;  and  now,  he  is  a  power- 
less old  man,  supported  on  his  throne  only  by  Austrian  bayonets ! 
Thus  it  is,  that  in  the  logical  analysis  of  the  gentleman's  argu- 
ment, we  discover  the  bane  and  antidote.  One  portion  of  his  as- 
sertions refutes  the  other;  and  the  only  difficulty  is,  to  know  when 
he  is  serious,  or  which  side  to  believe.  He  is  as  contradictory 
in  the  matter  of  his  defence,  as  in  that  of  his  attack.  Now,  he  is  an 
orthodox  Presbyterian,  professing  to  have  received  a  command  to 
*'  REMOVE  ALL  FALSE  WORSHIPS;"  and  now  he  is  a  flaming joa/no^, 
anxious  only  to  preserve  them !  He  seems  to  be  operated  on 
alternately  by  the  contradictory  principles  of  his  creed,  and  of  his 
country;  and  his  benevolent  nature,  like  Mahomet's  coffin,  is  sus- 
pended between  them,  with  the  additional  circumstance,  that  he 
oscillates  from  one  side  to  the  other,  as  the  necessities  of  his  argu- 
ment may  require. 

6.  CHARACTER  OF  HIS  TESTIMONIES.  These  may 
be  divided  into — opinions  and  facts.  His  opinions  may  pass  for 
what  they  are  worth.  When  he  shall  have  lived  longer,  and  read 
more,  and  enlarged  his  intercourse  with  the  world,  he  may  see 
reason  to  change  his  opinions,  and  say,  with  the  Aposde,  "  when 
I  was  a  child,  I  thought  as  a  child,  I  spoke  as  a  child.^^  As  for 
his  facts  in  argument,  they  are  generally  the  opinions  of  bigoted 
Protestant,  or  discarded  and  condemned  Catholic  writers.  Of 
the  former  description,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  mention  Bancroft, 
Burnet,  Faber,  Cramp,  Blanco  White,  ("  Tristam  Shandy,") 
et  id  genus  omne.  Of  the  latter,  Dupin,  Pascal,  (a  Jansenist,) 
Thuanus,  Father  Paul,  and  the  Abbe  De  Pradt.  Renegades, 
apostates,— enemies  in  disguise,  whose  works  have  been  refuted 
by  Catholic  writers.  That  he  should  have  been  correctly  in- 
formed on  the  Catholic  religion,  was  not  to  be  expected.  He 
would  learn  our  principles  from  our  enemies  alone ;  but  as  to  our 
own  approved  expositions  of  doctrine,  I  hazard  but  little  in  say- 
ing, that  he  never  read  sixty  pages  of  them  in  his  life,  except  in 
the  mind. and  spirit  which  prompt  the  Deist  to  read  the  Bible. 
The  consequence  is,  that  he  is  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  doc- 
trines which  he  professes  to  understand  and  discuss.  I  shall  take 
any  child  over  six  years,  that  has  been  instructed  in  the  Catechism, 
and  if  that  child's  answers  to  twelve  questions,  on  the  points  dis- 
puted between  Catholics  and  Protestants,  are  not  found  to  be  more 
correct,  true,  precise,  and  theological,  than  the  gentleman'' s  an- 
swers to  the  same  questions, — I  shall  be  ready  to  make  him  an 
apology.  Religion  among  Protestants  is  not  so  much  a  question 
of  correct  knowledge  and  truth,  as  a  business  of  party  ;  and 
hence  it  is,  that  to  multitudes  prejudiced  by  this  party  feeling,  the 
word  "  papist,"  or  some  other  epithet  of  abuse,  is  more  conclu- 
sive, from  the  lips  of  a  parson,  than  would  be  a  demonstration  of 

65 


514 

Euclid,  submitted  by  a  Catholic  priest.  No  syllogism  could 
make  Presbyterians  half  so  orthodox  as  Dr.  Miller's  simple  story 
about  the  "  crabs  in  black  velvet."  These  circumstances  account 
for  the  ignorance,  or  rather  false  information,  with  which  the 
gentleman  and  his  associates  attack  the  Catholic  religion ;  they 
know  the  travesty  of  our  faith,  and  when  they  destroy  this  by 
libaldry,  it  is  only  the  creature  of  their  own  brain  that  perishes. 
Our  faith  remains  untouched  as  before. 

FINALLY.—HIS  ASSERTIONS  THAT  PRESBYTERI- 
ANS HAVE  NOT  PERSECUTED  IN  THIS  COUNTRY. 
This  is  true,  so  far  as  life  and  property  are  concerned.  But  so 
far  as  REPUTATION,  CHARACTER,  and  GOOD  NAME 
could  be  destroyed,  invaded,  or  injured  by  base  falsehoods,  slan- 
ders and  calumnies,  invented,  circulated,  and  patronised  by  Pres- 
byterians, a  more  subtle  and  cruel  persecution  has  never  been 
waged  than  they  have,  for  the  last  few  years,  carried  on  against 
their  Catholic  fellow-citizens.  The  fate  of  the  Convent  at  Bos- 
ton, shows  that  the  transition  from  the  blackening  of  character  to 
the  destruction  of  property,  and  the  risk  of  life,  is  easy  and 
natural.  They  first  bear  false  witness  against  the  Convent,  and 
then  burn  it  down,  on  the  strength  of  their  oivn  calumnious  tes- 
timony. Is  not  this  persecution  ?  Doctor  Beecher  and  his  asso- 
ciates first  fire  the  passions  of  the  people,  and  the  falsehoods 
which  those  preachers  propagate  in  the  name  of  the  living  God, 
acting  on  the  minds  of  ignorant  and  credulous  followers,  place  the 
torch  in  the  hands  of  the  midnight  incendiaries.  Property  has 
been  destroyed — lives  have  bsen  jeoparded — by  the  spirit  of  Pres- 
byterian persecution  in  the  United  States,  and  in  the  nineteenth 
century— ;/br  no  other  crime  save  that  of  worshipping  God,  ac- 
cording to  the  dictates  of  conscience  !  ! 

The  instruments  of  obedience  to  the  second  commandment,  for 
"removing  this  monument  of  idolatry,"  searched  among  the 
ruins, — they  even  did  not  spare  the  sepulchre,  in  the  hope  of  dis- 
covering something  to  sustain  their  slanders.  They  found  no- 
thing. But  not  dismayed,  the  spirit  of  lying  and  slander  which 
had  taken  possession  of  them,  became  emboldened  by  the  scene  of 
desolation  which  it  had  produced.  It  attempted  to  blacken  and  de- 
stroy the  character  of  the  Catholics,  by  new  slanders.  They  had 
dungeons  for  the  inquisition  under  their  churches, — and  one  of 
these  propagators  of  "  false  witness  against  their  neighbour,"  di- 
rects his  iDrother  bigots,  in  case  of  his  sudden  disappearance,  to 
look  for  his  body  under  the  Catholic  churches.  So  that,  in  case 
the  fanatic  should  commit  suicide,  or  hide  for  six  weeks,  he  ex- 
pects that  the  Catholic  churches  are  to  be  destroyed,  in  order  to 
find,  or,  at  least,  search  for  his  remains.  Foreign  conspiracies 
were  invented,  and  charged  on  the  Catholics ; — an  old  trick  in  the 
tactics  of  Presbyterian  persecution.  They  knew  both  of  these 
charges  to  he  false.     There  was  no  evidence  to  sustain  either ; 


5\5 

and  the  rule  is,  that  men  are  to  be  held  innocent  until  they  are 
proved  guilty.  The  story  about  having  knocked  down  a  senator, 
was  proven,  by  the  Cincinnati  papers,  to  have  been  "  an  impu- 
dent LIE."  Still  it  is  consecrated  in  their  writings,  as  if  it  had 
not  been  a  slander.  Book  after  book  has  been  published — slander 
after  slander  has  been  repeated, — but  yet  nothing  proved  against 
the  Catholics.  In  general,  these  charges  are  vague,  and  not  made 
directly  against  individuals  by  name.  They  thus  shun  the  legal 
consequences  of  their  defamation.  But,  in  some  instances,  this 
"  hunger  and  thirst"  for  calumnies  against  "  popery"  have  be- 
trayed individuals  into  very  unpleasant  circumstances,  from  which 
they  have  had  to  extricate  themselves  by  a  humiliating  process. 
Let  me  give  an  instance. 

From  the  Christian  Herald,  January  8,  1836. 
TJHE  AMENDE  HONORABLE.— Having,  in  the  Christian 
Herald,  of  the  llth  of  July,  published  a  paragraph  which  seemed 
to  insinuate  a  charge  of  improper  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  Rev. 
John  O'Reilly,  during  his  absence  in  the  summer  from  this  city, 
I  do  hereby  declare  that  I  had  no  intention  to  injure  the  character 
of  this  gentleman,  and,  for  the  satisfaction  of  him  and  his  friends, 
and  repair  any  injury  he  may  have  sustained  from  that  article,  I 
do  hereby  declare  my  belief  that  said  rumours  were  unfounded. 
Given  under  my  hand,  January  1,  1836. 

T.  D.  BAIRD. 

This,  I  should  say,  is  a  humiliating  business  for  a  Presbyterian  . 
MINISTER.     But  even  this  was  not  sufficient.     He  had  to  make 
another  attempt  to  repair  the  injury  to  character. 

From  the  same,  of  January  22,  1836. 
Having,  in  the  Christian  Herald,  of  the  8th  instant,  published 
some  hasty  remarks  upon  the  controversy  existing  between  the 
Rev.  John  O'Reilly  and  myself,  I  hereby  acknowledge  that  they 
were  made  under  a  misconception,  and  calculated  to  convey  an 
erroneous  impression  concerning  the  condition  on  which  Mr. 
O'Reilly  agreed  that  all  legal  proceedings  should  cease,  and  the 
suit  be  withdrawn,  which  conditions  were  as  follows, — viz.,  that 
I  should  publish  the  explanation,  and  pay  all  expenses. 

T.  D.  BAIRD. 

But  to  enumerate  all  the  instances  in  which  they  have  attempt- 
ed to  blacken  the  character  of  Catholics  by  slander,  would  be  end- 
less. And  it  is  a  fact,  of  which  Catholics  may  be  proud,  that  the 
issue  in  every  charge,  has  eventuated  not  in  the  establishment  of 
the  accusation,  but  in  fixing,  silently,  the  brand  and  seal  of  tlie 
slanderer  mi  their  accusers.  Generally,  indeed,  the  tales  of  fic- 
tion set   forth  by  these  men  and  women,  Miss  Reed,  Doctor 


516 

Brownlee,  poor,  lalleii,  Mr.  Smith,  the  gentleman  himself,  and 
the  last  ally  in  the  holy  cause.  Miss  Maria  Monk,  are  so  incredi- 
ble, or  so  stupid  ; — so  extravagant,  or  so  indecent ; — that  to  sober  and 
reflecting  minds,  they  betray  only  the  depraved  zeal  of  their  au- 
thors, and  the  weakness  of  the  cause,  which  is  reduced  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  employing  such  base  means  of  support.  Miss  Reed  is 
now  quite  eclipsed  ;  and  at  present  the  contest  is  between  Mr. 
Smith,  and  the  Rev.  Mrs.  Hoyte,  alias  Miss  Monk.  The  busi- 
ness of  simple  lying  against  the  Catholics,  had  been  exhausted ; 
and  hence,  in  the  more  recent  publications,  scenes  of  the  lowest 
and  vilest  debauchery,  with  a  suitable  sprinkling  of  murders,  and 
infanticide,  are  presented  with  such  clumsy  grossness,  that  even 
the  Journal  of  Commerce  could  not  swallow  them.  The  charac- 
ter of  the  writer  was  infamous ;  but  that  circumstance  made  her 
the  more  appropriate  to  the  vocation,  whereunto  she  had  been 
called  by  the  parsonhood.  The  dirtier  the  implement,  the  fitter 
for  the  work  which  they  have  to  carry  on.  The  plan  of  a  con- 
spiracy is  laid,  the  mother  of  an  illegitimate  child  is  selected,  and 
the  victim  of  their  own  depravity  is  made  the  instrument  by 
which  it  is  intended  to  destroy  the  reputation  of  a  whole  commu- 
nity. Was  anything  ever  conceived  more  black,  more  dastardly, 
more  diabolical  ?  An  attempt  is  made  to  bribe  the  mother  of  the 
unfortunate  woman  to  join  in  the  conspiracy,  and  to  support  it 
by  PERJURY.  The  following  is  an  extract  of  the  affidavit,  in 
which  she  disclosed  the  attempt  that  had  been   made  to  corrupt 

her  veracity,  by  these  unprincipled  hypocrites: "The 

next  day  Mr.  Hoyte  came  in  with  an  elderly  man,  Dr.  Judge 
Turner,  of  St.  Albans.  They  demanded  to  see  the  child,  which 
I  produced.  Mr.  Hoyte  demanded  if  I  had  discovered  the  mother ; 
I  said  not.  She  must  be  found,  said  he  ;  she  has  taken  away  a 
shawl  and  a  bonnet  belonging  to  a  servant  girl  at  Goodenough's ; 
he  would  not  pay  for  them,  she  had  cost  him  too  much  already ; 
that  his  things  were  kept  at  the  hotel  on  that  account:  being 
afraid  that  this  might  more  deeply  involve  my  daughter,  I  offered 
my  own  shawl  to  replace  the  one  taken ;  Mr.  Hoyte  first  took  it, 
but  afterwards  returned  it  to  me  on  my  promise  that  I  would  pay 
for  the  shawl  and  bonnet.  In  the  course  of  the  day,  Mrs.  Tar- 
bert  found  my  daughter,  but  she  would  not  come  to  my  house ;  she 
sent  the  bonnet  and  shawl,  which  were  returned  to  the  owner, 
who  had  lent  them  to  my  daughter  to  assist  her  in  procuring  her 
escape  from  Mr.  Hoyte,  at  the  hotel.  Early  on  the  afternoon  of 
the  same  day,  Mr.  Hoyte  came  to  my  house  with  the  same  old 
man,  wishing  me  to  make  all  my  efforts  to  find  the  girl,  in  the 
meantime  speaking  very  bitterly  against  the  Catholics,  the  Priests, 
and  the  Nuns  ;  mentioning  that  my  daughter  had  been  in  the  Nun- 
nery, where  she  had  been  ill-treated.  I  denied  that  my  daughter 
had  ever  been  in  a  Nunnery,  that  when  she  was  about  eight  years 
of  age,  she  went  to  a  day-school ;  at  that  time  came  in  two  other 


517 

persons,  whom  Mr.  Hoyte  introduced ;  one  was  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Brewster.  I  do  not  recollect  the  other  reverence's  name.  They 
all  requested  me,  in  the  most  pressing  terms,  to  try  to  make  it 
out  that  my  daughter  had  been  in  the  Nunnery ;  and  that  she 
had  some  connexion  with  the  Priests  of  the  Seminary,  of  lahich 
Nunneries  and  Priests  he  spoke  in  the  most  outrageous  terms  ; 
said,  that  should  I  make  it  out,  myself,  rny  daughter,  and  child, 
woidd  be  'protected for  life.  I  expected  to  get  rid  of  their  impor- 
tunities, in  relating  the  melancholy  circumstances  by  which  my 
daughter  was  frequently  deranged  in  her  head,  and  told  them,  that 
when  at  the  age  of  about  seven  years,  she  broke  a  slate-pencil  in 
her  head  ;  that  since  that  time  her  mental  faculties  were  deranged, 
and  by  times  much  more  so  than  at  other  times,  but  that  she  was 
far  from  being  an  idiot ;  that  she  could  make  the  most  ridiculous, 
but  most  plausible  stories ;  and  that  as  to  the  history  that  she  had 
been  in  a  Nunnery,  it  was  a  fabrication,  for  she  nevei  was  in  a 
Nunnery ;  that  at  one  time  I  wished  to  obtain  a  place  in  a  Nun- 
nery for  her,  that  I  had  employed  the  influence  of  Mrs.  De  Mon- 
tenach,  of  Dr.  Nelson,  and  of  our  pastor,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Esson, 
but  without  success.  /  told  them  notwithstanding  I  was  a  Pro- 
testant, and  did  7Wt  like  the  Roman  Catholic  religion — like  all 
other  respectable  Protestants,  I  held  the  Priests  of  the  Seminary 
and  the  Nuns  of  Montreal  in  veneration,  as  the  most  pious  and 
charitable  persons  I  ever  knew.^^  (1) 

Here,  sir,  is  a  scene  of  complicated  depravity,  for  which  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  a  parallel.  The  only  one  I  can  remem- 
ber equal  to  it,  is  that  in  which  Brandt  tells,  of  one  of  the  Catho- 
lic victims  of  Presbyterian  persecution  in  Holland,  to  whom  they 
gave  sweet  wine,  in  order  to  make  him  drunk  in  the  agonies  of 
death,  on  the  rack. 

Persecution  advances  by  degrees,  and  it  is  a  fact  as  well  estab- 
lished in  history,  as  the  burning  of  Servetus  by  Calvin,  that  Pres- 
byterians, as  they  persecuted  to  death  in  every  country  where 
they  had  power,  so  in  every  case,  the  first  degree  of  that  perse- 
cution was,  in  the  thick,  black,  gross,  and  unmeasured  calumnies 
which  they  heaped  on  the  character  of  their  intended  victims.  At 
an  early  period  of  their  history  in  France,  Maimburg,  quoted  by 
Bayle,  (2)  says,  their  libels  against  the  Jesuits,  the  clergy  and 
government  of  France,  already  amounted  to  ten  volumes,  which 
were  filled,  says  he,  with  "  all  that  detraction  and  the  blackest 
tnalignity  have  ever  invented,  of  supposed  crimes,  atrocious 
invectives  and  calumny,  spread  out  brutally,  and  without  judg- 
ment or  taste "    Bayle,  though  himself  educated  a 

Calvinist,  confirms  the  truth  of  this  statement.  Chalmers  tells 
us,  that  the  Presbyterians  accomplished  the  destruction  of  the  un- 
fortunate Queen  of  Scots,  by  the  same   means.  (3)     The   same 

(1)  Extract  from  Mrs.  Monk's  oath.  (2)  Avis  aux  Ref.  vol.  ii.  p.  586. 

(3)  Chalmer's  Life  of  Mary,  vol.  ii.  p.  9. 


518 

means  of  calumny  and  slander,  were  employed  for  the 
destruction  of  the  Arminians,  in  Holland;  and  the  Episcopa- 
lians in  England  ;  as  we  see  in  Brandt  and  Neal,  passim.  To 
their  calumnies  we  trace,  on  the  most  respectable  testimony,  the 
origin  of  the  wicked  principles  which  ignorance  has  so  long  and 
so  falsely  attributed  to  the  Jesuits.  These  calumnies  were  echoed 
in  the  clamours  and  writings  of  the  infidels  and  Jansenists,  of  the 
last  century,  and  from  these  again,  the  Calvinists  and  others,  now 
derive  only  new  editions  of  their  own  old  slanders.  The  bishops 
of  France,  when  called  upon,  gave  the  true  character  of  the  Jesuits 
in  their  answer  to  the  king,  who  had  submitted  this  subject  of 
inquiry. 

"Article  II.  How  the  Jesuits  behave  in  the  instructions,  and  in 
their  own  conduct,  with  regard  to  their  instructions,  and  in  their 
own  conduct,  with  regard  to  certain  opinions  which  strike  at  the 
safety  of  the  king's  person;  as  likewise,  with  regard  to  the  re- 
ceived doctrines  of  the  clergy  of  France,  contained  in  the  decla- 
ration of  the  year  1682  ;  and  in  general,  with  regard  to  their  opi- 
nions on  the  other  side  of  the  Alps."     Here  is  their  testimony  : — 

"  Our  history  informs  us,  that,  in  the  infancy  of  the  society  in 
France,  the  Calvinists  used  their  utmost  endeavour  to  hinder  the 
growth  of  a  body  of  men,  raised  on  purpose  to  oppose  their  errors, 
and  to  stop  the  spreading  contagion :  to  this  end,  they  dispersed 
into  all  parts  a  multitude  of  pamphlets,  in  which  the  Jesuits  were 
arraigned  as  professing  a  doctrine  inconsistent  with  the  safety  of 
his  majesty's  sacred  person;  being  well  assured,  that  the  impu- 
tation of  so  atrocious  a  crime  was  the  shortest  and  securest  way 
to  bring  about  their  ruin.  These  libels  soon  raised  a  prejudice 
against  the  Jesuits,  in  the  minds  of  all  those  who  had  any  inte- 
rest in  opposing  their  establishment  in  France,  and  some  commu- 
nities even  joined  in  the  impeachment.  The  crimes  which  are 
now  laid  to  their  charge,  in  the  numberless  writings  that  swarm 
in  all  parts  of  your  majesty's  dominions,  are  no  other  than  those 
which  were  maliciously  forged,  and  published  above  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  ago.  It  is  not  from  such  libels  as  these, 
that  we  are  to  form  a  just  idea,  or  rational  judgment,  of  the  Je- 
suits' doctrine  or  behaviour:  such  wild  and  groundless  accusations 
did  not  deserve  our  attention,  and  the  little  notice  we  took  of  them, 
may  be  a  convincing  proof  to  your  majesty,  of  the  Jesuits'  inno- 
cence." (1) 

In  England,  during  their  civil  wars,  the  same  course  of  circu- 
lating the  most  absurd  and  stupid  calwnnies  was  systema- 
tically pursued,  as  we  learn  from  the  testimony  of  Protestant  wri- 
ters. Bishop  Warburton  tells  us  "  they  (the  Presbyterians,) 
preached  and  fought  for  the  King^s  destruction;  and  fasted  and 

(] )  Judgment  of  the  Bishops  of  France,  concerning  the  doctrine,  the  gov- 
ernment, the  conduct,  and  usefulness  of  the  French  Jesuits.     Appendix. 


519 

prayed  for  his  preservation,  when  they  had  brought  him  to 
THE  FOOT  OF  THE  SCAFFOLD."  But  their  calumnies  never  ceased. 
At  times,  the  Catholics  were  solemnly  denounced  as  '*  the  sowers 
of  discord  between  the  king  and  his  faithful  commons."  (1)  This 
day,  whole  fleets  of  foieign  Papists  were  created  upon  the  coasts; 
the  next  day,  the  ordinary  equipage  of  a  Catholic  nobleman  was 
magnified  into  a  Popish  army ;  viz :  the  Earl  of  Bristol's.  (2) 
Now  the  nation  was  terrified  with  the  report  of  "  an  army  under 
GROUND."  (3)  Then  the  inhabitants  of  London  were  frightened 
with  the  intelligence  of  a  new  gunpowder  plot,  for  "  BLOWING 
UP  THE  RIVER  THAMES,  AND  DROWNING  THAT 
FAITHFUL  PROTESTANT  CITY."  (4)  At  last  one  Beale, 
a  tailor,  at  Cripplegate,  was  introduced  to  the  House  of  Commons, 
by  no  less  a  man  than  the  celebrated  John  Hampden,  (5)  who 
averred,  that  ^^  walking  in  the  fields  near  a  bank,  he  overheard 
from  the  opposite  side  of  it,  the  particulars  of  a  plot,  concerted 
by  the  Priests  and  other  Papists,  for  one  hundred  and  eight  as- 
sassins to  murder  one  hundred  and  eight  leading  members  of 
Parliament,  at  the  rate  of  ten  pounds  for  every  lord,  and  of  forty 
shillings  for  every  commoner,  so  murdered.^^  (6)  To  show  the 
bigotry  of  the  first  men  in  the  nation,  at  that  time,  against  the 
Catholics,  it  will  be  sufl[icient  to  mention,  that  upon  this  very 
deposition  of  the  Cripplegate  tailor,  stuflfed  with  other  circum- 
stances equally  absurd,  and  unsupported  by  any  collateral  evi- 
dence, (7j  the  House  of  Commons  proceeded  to  the  most  violent 
measures  against  them;  and,  under  pretence  of  greater  security, 
ordered  the  train-bands  and  militia  of  the  kingdom  to  be  in  readi- 
ness, and  to  be  placed  under  the  command  of  that  real  traitor  the 
Earl  of  Essex.  (8) 

The  Episcopal  clergy  fared  no  better.    Heylin  tells  us, 

"  they  could  find  no  other  title  for  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
than  Belzebub  of  Canterbury,  Pope  of  Lambeth,  the  Canterbury 
Caiphas,  Esau,  a  monstrous  anti- Christian  Pope,  a  most  bloody 
opposer  of  God's  saints,  a  very  anti- Christian  beast,  a  most  vile 
and  cursed  tyrant.  They  tell  us  further  of  this  humble  and 
meek  spirited  man,  that  no  Bishop  ever  had  such  an  aspiring 
and  ambitious  mind,  as  he;  no,  not  Cardinal  TVolsey :  None  so 
proud  as  he;  no,  not  Stephen  Gardiner  of  Winchester:  None  so 
tyrannical  as  he;  no,  not  Bonner,  the  butcher  of  London.  In 
general,  he  tells  us  both  of  him,  and  the  rest  of  the  bishops.  That 
they  are  unlawful,  unnatural,  false,  bastardly  governors  of  the 
Church,  the  Ordinances  of  the  Devil,  petty  Popes,  petty  anti- 
christs, incarnate  devils,  Bishops  of  the  devil,  cogging,  cozen- 


(1)  Remonstr.  of  Pari.  an.  1641.         (2)  Nalson's  Collections,  Pref.  p.  76. 

(3)  Exam,  of  Neal's  Hist,  of  Puritans,  by  Grey,  vol.  ii,  p.  260. 

(4)  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  260.  (5)  Clarendon's  Hist,  of  Rebellion. 
(6)  Nalson's  Col.  vol.  ii.  p.  646,  &c.  (7)  Ibid.  p.  647.  (8)  Ibid. 


520 

ing  knaves,  and  will  lie  like  dogs.  That  they  are  proud,  popish, 
presumptuous, profane,  paltry,  pestilent,  pernicious  Prelates,  and 
usurpers;  enemies  of  God,  and  the  most  pestilent  enemies  of  the 
State;  and,  that  the  worst  Puritan  in  England  is  an  honester 
man  than  the  best  Lord  Bishop  in  Christendom.''''  (1) 

In  fact,  this  was  the  spirit  of  their  founders.  They  adopted 
from  the  cradle  the  motto, 

Calumniare  audacter,  semper  aliquid  adhserebit. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Whitaker,  a  clergyman  of  the  English  Episcopal 
Church,  tells  us  of  Knox,  (and  gives  facts  to  prove  it,)  "that  he 

was  an  original  genius  in  lying, that  he  felt  his  mind 

impregnated  with  a  peculiar  portion  of  that  spirit  of  falsehood, 
which  is  so  largely  possessed  by  the  father  of  lies."  (2)  Of  Bu- 
chanan, another  Scotch  Presbyterian  Reformer,  Whitaker  tells  us, 

"  that  he  became  equally  devoid  of  principle,  and  of 

shame,  ready  for  any  fabrication  of  falsehood,  and  capable  of 
any  operation  in  villany."  (3)  The  testimony  of  Doctor  Stewart 
is  to  the  same  effect.  (4) 

In  fine,  this  learned  Protestant  author,  Whitaker,  whose  sub- 
ject introduced  him  to  all  the  sources  of  information,  says, 
"FORGERY,  /  blush  for  the  honour  of  Protestantism,  while 
I  write,  seems  to  have  been  PECULIAR  to  the  Reformed.  I 
look  in  vain  for  one  of  these  accursed  outrages  of  imposition 
among  the  disciples  of  Popery.''^  (5) 

I  now  take  leave  of  the  subject.  Nothing  but  necessity  could 
have  induced  me  to  enter  into  this  discussion.  My  apology  to 
my  friends,  both  Catholics  and  Protestants,  is,  that  a  system  of 
ferocious  denunciation  had  been  organized,  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
stroying the  civil  and  religious  rights  of  Catholics,  and  thus  depriv- 
ing them  of  those  constitutional  privileges  which,  in  common  with 
the  patriots  of  other  denominations,  they  bled  to  purchase.  This 
system  was  under  the  direction  of  the  gentleman,  and  a  few  Pres- 
byterian ministers,  FOREIGNERS;  of  whom,  Dr.  Brownlee 
may  be  regarded  as  chief.  These  men,  if  they  pursue  their  mea- 
sures of  intolerance,  disorganizing  the  harmonies  of  society,  and 
propagating  religious  bigotry,  instead  of  charity,  peace,  and  good- 
will among  men,  will  bring  disgrace  on  even  the  Presbyterian  name. 
This  is  the  opinion  of  the  more  sober  and  rational  portion  of 
their  own  members.  I  am  aware  that,  in  ordinary  circumstances, 
it  is  not  for  the  Catholic  priest,  the  minister  of  a  religion  whose 
principles  have  been  promulged  throughout  the  world  for  eighteen 
hundred  years,  to  enter  into  dispute  with  the  unsettled  advocate  of 


(1)  Dr.  Heylin's  Hist,  of  Pres.  (2)  Vindication  of  Mary,  vol.  ii.  p.  22. 

(3)  Vindic.  of  Mary,  ibid.  (4)  Hist,  of  Scot],  vol.  ii.  p.  245. 

(5)  Vol.  ii.  p.  2. 


521 

turbulence  and  fanaticism,  no  matter  by  what  name  he  may  be  called. 
But  when  a  Presbyterian  minister,  in  the  ripeness  of  combined 
ignorance  and  bigotry,  steps  forward  in  the  name  of  liberty  and 
Ood,  to  show  reasons  why  their  followers  should  fire  the  con- 
vents, and  churches,  and  property  of  Catholics,  it  is  time  to  put 
the  lovers  of  peace  and  order  on  their  guard.  It  is  time  that  the 
people  should  know  something  of  Presbyterian,  as  well  as  Catho- 
lic history.  If  the  gentleman  had  beeu  a  Baptist,  I  should  have 
let  him  pass  on.  If  he  had  been  a  Methodist,  I  should  have  said 
nothing.  If  he  had  been  a  Quaker,  1  should  have  heard  his  pro- 
fessions of  zeal  for  "  civil  and  religious  liberty,"  in  silence. 

The  principles  of  Roger  Williams,  and  of  William  Penn,  would 
have  disarmed  resentment.  Whether  it  is  owing  to  the  pacific 
principles  of  these  denominations,  or  to  the  fact  that,  never  having 
possessed  civil  power,  they  never  had  the  strong  temptation  to 
persecute,  it  is  certainly  true  that  neither  the  Friends,  nor  the 
Baptists,  nor  the  Methodists  have  ever  been  guilty  of  persecution 
for  conscience'  sake.  Their  robes  are  as  yet  unstained  with  this 
crime — and  they  are  unwise  in  this  age  of  the  world,  if  they  do 
not  continue  to  preserve  them  as  they  are.  But  for  a  disciple  of 
Presbyterianism  to  make  himself  conspicuous — and  stand  forth  to 
talk  of  the  rights  of  conscience,  whilst  the  mantle  of  Calvinism, 
with  which  he  covers  himself,  is  stained  and  purple  with  the 
blood  of  men  of  every  creed,  and  of  every  country  where  it  could 
be  shed; — this  was  too  much.  When  the  gentleman  assumed 
this  position,  and  pressedhimself  importunately  on  my  notice,  when 
he  knew  that  1  was  averse  to  disputation,  then  I  felt  it  due  to  the 
public  to  administer  to  him  the  rebuke  of  history,  which  ignorance 
had  so  wantonly  provoked.  My  only  wish  is,  that  he  and  his 
brethren,  who  have  more  zeal  than  discretion,  may  preserve  these 
testimonies  of  history,  which  establish  the  character  of  his  creed, 
and  labour  to  correct  the  ugliness  and  deformity  of  its  features, 
instead  of  attempting  to  break  the  innocent  mirror,  for  reflecting 
them  truly. 

I  have  established  my  arguments  by  the  most  respectable  autho- 
rities, generally  Presbyterians  and  Protestants.  I  have,  I  trust, 
attacked  no  other  denomination  of  Christians,  and  I  can  say  with 
truth,  that  towards  men  of  all  denominations  I  cherish  feelings  of 
benevolence,  charity,  and  good  will.  It  was  painful  to  me  to 
have  spoken  of  Presbyterians,  among  whom  I  have  the  pleasure 
to  number  many  friends,  as  I  have  done.  But  Mr.  Breckinridge 
imposed  it  on  me  as  a  duty  to  say  the  truth — and  I  have  done  so. 
I  would  rather,  however,  be  employed  in  soothing,  than  exciting, 
even  by  necessity,  the  feelings  of  religious  prejudice  and  bigotry 
on  either  side.  Men  have  but  a  short  time  to  live  in  this  world, 
and  why  should  they,  and  especially  they  who  minister,  embitter 
the  cup  of  human  existence  ?  Let  Presbyterians  worship  God,  ac- 
cording to  the  dictates  of  their  conscience,  let  Catholics  do  the 

66 


522 

same.  But  let  neither  be  engaged  in  the  unholy  work  of  sowing 
discord  among  brethren,  or  in  rupturing  the  ties  of  harmony  which 
bind  all  citizens  into,  at  least,  social  union.  Blessed  are  the  peace- 
makers, for  they  shall  be  called  the  children  of  God.  Whose 
children  can  they  be,  who  are  destroyers  of  peace  and  sowers  of 
discord  ? 

If  I  have  spoken  of  individuals  not  immediately  connected  with 
this  discussion,  I  have  done  so  only  in  relation  to  their  published 
writings  ; — and  never  have  I  touched  their  private  character  or  his- 
tory. In  this  regard,  therefore,  I  trust  that  I  have  violated  no 
rule  of  propriety.  I  have  left  eave-droppers  and  tattlers,  to  those 
who  may  need,  and  can  employ  them.  Finally,  the  gentleman 
has  the  closing  speech — and  I  shall  have  no  opportunity  to  expose 
it.  If  he  can  bring  forward  argument  to  show  that  the  Presbyte- 
rian religion  is  not  as  intolerant  and  as  persecuting  as  its  doctrines 
and  history  have  proved  it  to  be,  I  shall  be  happy  to  read  them. 
But  if,  instead  of  this,  he  shall  elope  from  "  the  question,"  and 
relapse  into  the  abuse  of  popery,  he  will  thereby  furnish  the  best 
evidence  that,  on  both  questions,  he  has  signally  and  triumphantly 
FAILED. 


523 


"  Is  the  Presbyterian  Religion,  in  any  or  in  all  its  prin- 
ciples or  doctrines,  opposed  to  civil  or  religious  liberty  T^ 


NEGATIVE  VI.— MR.  BRECKINRIDGE. 

Mr.  President, 
At  the  close  of  the  oral  debate,  I  predicted  that  Mr.  Hughes 
would  never  permit  the  publication  of  our  Discussion.  One  of 
his  own  followers  in  this  city  has  truly  said,  that  Mr.  Hughes  has 
made  such  statements  in  the  debate,  that  he  never  will  agree  to 
its  publication.  We  have  now  a  practical  demonstration  of  the 
truth  of  the  statement-  The  Discussion  is  little  more  than  half 
finished;  yet  I  have  received  his  last  piece,  containing  his  faie- 
well  to  me,  to  the  public,  and  to  the  defence  of  his  deserted  cause. 
He  has  avowed  his  determination  to  write  no  more  to  the  publish- 
ing committee  and  to  the  Society ;  and  has  even  gone  so  far  as  to 
require  that  the  society  should  peremptorily  close  the  debate,  and 
stop  me,  as  well  as  connive  at  his  retreat !  All  this  has  been  done, 
too,  after  his  solemn  public  promise  to  write  the  debate  anew,  if 
the  society  and  I  would  agree  to  lay  aside  the  stenographer's  re- 
port. The  society,  however,  with  much  unanimity,  and  after  long 
patience,  resolved  (on  the  last  evening)  that  the  portion  of  the  de- 
bate now  finished  should  be  published,  and  then  the  disputants, 
or  either  of  them,  might  go  on,  under  the  sanction  of  the  society, 
to  finish  the  questions  at  issue.  Mr.  Hughes  has  behaved  in  so 
extraordinary  a  way,  that  his  retreat  from  the  discussion  is  in  fact 
the  settlement  of  the  question ;  and  its  history  deserves  to  be  pre- 
served, as  illustrative  of  the  acts  of  a  Jesuit  to  shun  the  light;  and 
the  desperation  of  a  cause,  which,  with  all  his  talents  and  learning, 
he  cannot  defend.  I  therefore  incorporate  one  of  my  letters  to  the 
society,  written  on  the  occasion  of  his  refusing  to  proceed,  as  a 
brief  explanation  of  the  state  of  the  case.  And  in  confirmation  of 
what  is  said  in  it,  I  appeal  to  the  members  of  the  society,  and  to 
the  records  af  the  institution. 

Philadelphia,  March  29th,  1836. 

To  THE  President  of  the  Young  Men's  7 
Literary  and  Debating  Society.        5 

Sir, 
Having  been  informed,  that  the  young  gentlemen  of  the  So- 
ciety have  delayed  the  final  decision  of  the  painful  question  now 


524 

pending,  in  regard  to  the  publication  of  the  debate,  until  this  even- 
ing, I  take  the  liberty  of  making  an  additional  communication 
through  you  to  the  Society. 

As  no  little  time  has  passed  since  the  debate  began,  and  many 
changes  have  taken  place  in  our  arrangements,  a  rapid  retrospect 
of  the  circumstances  may  not  now  be  amiss.  The  following  facts 
will  not  be  disputed,  it  is  supposed,  by  any  member  of  the  So- 
ciety ;  or  if  disputed,  are  capable  of  ample  proof. 

1.  Mr.  Hughes  refused,  on  the  third  night,  to  proceed  without 
a  reporter — yet  he  afterwards  rejected  the  reporter's  work. 

2.  Mr.  Hughes  selected  the  present  method  of  preparing  the 
debate  for  the  press  ;  and  he  pledged  himself  to  complete  it  in  this 
way;  and  he  proposed  no  limits  or  terms  at  the  cojnmencement 
of  this  plan  of  preparation  :  on  the  contrary,  he  found  fault  with 
the  former  Publishing  Committee  for  seeking  to  restrict  him;  and 
a  new  committee  was  appointed  by  the  Society  to  carry  the  new 
plan  into  effect. 

3.  The  Society  did  thus  and  otherwise  sanction  the  present 
plan,  and  agree  to  carry  it  into  effect.  And  it  was  on  the  faith  of 
Mr.  Hughes's  pledge,  and  theirs,  that  I  gave  up  the  stenographer's 
report,  and  adopted  Mr.  Hughes's  plan.  And  it  was  on  the  faith 
of  the  same  united  pledge,  that  the  debate  should  be  completed, 
sold,  and  published,  that  I  advanced  a  considerable  sum  of  money 
to  pay  the  Society's  debt  to  the  reporter. 

4.  Mr.  Hughes  first  set  the  example  of  enlarging  the  form  of 
the  original  debate;  for  when  the  first  Publishing  Committee  op- 
posed his  additions  to  the  report  of  the  stenographer,  he  said  he 
was  to  be  the  judge  of  how  much  or  how  little  should  be  added. 
Acting  on  this  principle,  we  began,  afterward,  to  rewrite  the 
whole,  each  having  full  liberty.  When,  therefore,  Mr.  Hughes 
complains  of  the  dilation  of  the  Discussion,  he  should  remember 
that  he  is  not  only  the  sharer,  but  author  of  the  practice. 

5.  Though  more  matter  has  been  ivritten  than  was  spoken  on 
the  same  number  of  nights,  yet  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
topics,  piesented  in  the  oral  debate,  have,  as  yet,  not  been  touched 
in  the  manuscript;  as,  for  example,  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope;. 
the  doctrine  of  the  JRoman  priesthood :  the  order  of  the  Jesuits; 
the  monastic  institutions  ;  the  immoral  tendency  of  the  system  of 
popery ;  the  Inquisition;  the  papal  conspiracy  abroad  against 
the  liberties  of  our  country,  are  all  yet  to  be  examined,  and  were 
all  gone  over  in  the  debate.  This,  Mr.  Hughes  well  knows. 
Yet  he  seeks  now  to  stop  short,  and  exclude  all  that  yet  remains. 
Besides  all  this,  there  are  allusions  in  the  discussion  of  the  second 
general  question,  to  the  discussion  of  the  first,  which  first  will 
not  appear,  if  we  arrest  the  debate  here.  How  absurd  will  this 
appear;  and  to  me,  how  palpably  unjust?  Mr.  Hughes,  contrary 
to  the  order  of  the  debate,  contrived  to  alternate,  very  absurdly, 
one  speech  on  one  question,  and  one  speech  on  the  other.     And 


525 

now  we  have  each  question  half  discussed ;  yet  he  insists  on  pub- 
lishing 710W,  and  publishing  7io  more  J 

In  view  of  all  these  facts,  I  can  hardly  think  it  possible  for 
your  honourable  body  to  do  such  violence  to  my  rights,  as  now  to 
force  a  close  of  the  Discussion  on  me.  Being,  however,  unfeign- 
edly  anxious  to  bring  every  part  of  the  Discussion,  as  speedily  as 
possible,  before  the  American  people,  I  have  conceded  much  to 
the  wishes  of  others,  as  will  be  seen  in  my  last  letter,  to  which  I 
respectfully  refer  the  Society.    * 

That  there  may  be  no  room  left  to  complain  of  my  terms,  I 
here  add,  to  the  proposals  of  that  communication,  the  following, 
viz. : — 

As  Mr.  Hughes  refuses  to  go  farther  in  the  debate,  let  it  be 
agreed,  that, /or  this  reason,  we  will  now  publish/owr  nights  of 
the  manuscript  debate :  let  me  then  complete  my  argument  on  the 
papal  question,  and  publish  it  under  the  sanction  of  the  Society, 
accompanied  by  an  explicit  avowal  of  the  fact,  that  Mr.  Hughes 
declines  to  pursue  the  Discussion.  I  will  publish  the  second 
part  at  my  own  risk,  and  ask  no  more  than  what  is  stated  above. 
If  Mr.  Hughes  asks  more,  his  country  must  see  why ;  and  his 
best  friends  must  blush  for  him,  when  he  shall  not  only  abruptly, 
and  after  all  his  pledges,  withdraw  from  tlie  Controversy,  but  even 
seek  to  silence  me  midway  the  question. 

I  feel  well  assured,  sir,  that  the  honourable  young  gentlemen, 
of  all  names  and  sects,  over  whom  you  preside,  will  esteem  my 
wishes  reasonable ;  and  will  unite  to  sustain  me  in  my  obvious 
rights. 

But  if  not,  then  I  must  appeal  to  the  American  public ;  and  re- 
verting to  the  alternative,  the  painful  alternative,  stated  in  my 
former  letter,  I  must  seek  shelter  from  injustice,  before  a  larger 
and  better  tribunal,  who  love  liberty,  who  will  do  justice  ;  and  be- 
fore whom,  if  God  give  me  help,  I  am  resolved  to  spread  out  the 
whole  of  the  debate,  and  the  history,  as  well  as  the  matter  of  it,  if 
my  stipulated  rights  should  now  be  so  seriously  invaded. 

With  full  confidence  in  the  candour  and  justice  of  the  Society, 
I  remain,  dear  sir,  very  respectfully. 

Your  friend  and  fellow-citizen, 

JOHN  BRECKINRIDGE. 

P.S,  I  understand  it  has  been  alleged,  that,  inasmuch  as  I  called 
on  the  audience  to  aid  in  paying  the  fees  of  the  stenographer,  at 
the  close  of  the  debate,  therefore,  he  was  confessedly  my  reporter. 
It  is  well  known,  as  I  then  avowed,  that  the  reason  of  the  call 
was  the  poverty  of  the  Society,  (which  had  no  funds,)  and  the 
pressing  wants  of  the  reporter,  who  expected  to  leave  the  city  the 
next  morning.  Besides,  it  is  fully  known,  that,  for  three  nights, 
the  Committee  had  failed  to  get  a  reporter ;  and  Mr.  Hughes  re- 
fused to  proceed  without  one.     Then,  at  the  request  of  the  Com- 


526 

mitiee,  I  wrote  for  Mr.  Stansbiiry — the  faitliful  reporter  of  tlie 
American  Congress  for  some  dozen  years.  And  yet,  after  all, 
Mr.  Hughes  rejects  his  reports.  Then,  when  we  yield  to  his 
wishes,  give  up  the  reporter's  manuscript,  and  begin,  at  his  re- 
quest, to  write  anew,  he  proceeds  but  half  way  through ;  when 
lo,  again,  and  of  a  sudden,  without  consultation,  or  agreement 
with  the  other  parties,  he  resolves  to  stoji.  Will  the  Society  sus- 
tain such  a  course  ?  It  was  on  the  faith  of  Mr.  Hughes's  repeated 
pledge,  to  complete  the  debate,  afid  on  the  faith  of  the  Society's 
pledge,  to  cause  it  to  be  completed,  and  sold,  and  published,  that 
I  advanced  money  to  pay  the  debt  of  the  Society.  Will  the  So- 
ciety now  permit,  nay,  aid  in  a  continuance  to  defeat  the  publica- 
tion? 

J.  B. 

Since  the  Society  adopted  the  last  course  so  firmly,  Mr.  Hughes 
has  so  far  come  to  terms,  as  to  allow  me  to  proceed,  though  he 
retreats  himself.  Men  do  not  commonly  retreat  from  the  victory 
of  their  cause.  I  exceedingly  regret  his  retiring  so  pertinaciously. 
But  the  way  is  open  {and  I  hereby  make  it  known)  to  any 
respectable,  accredited  priest  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  who  will 
take  the  place  of  his  absent  friend,  while  I  go  over  the  ground 
luhich  he  traversed  in  the  debate,  but  forsakes  at  the  press. 

It  becomes  my  duty  now  to  reply,  so  far  as  any  reply  is  called 
for,  to  his  last  speech  (now  before  me)  on  the  Presbyterian 
question. 

And  really  I  hardly  know  what  order  to  observe  in  this  reply. 
Despair  and  fury,  abuse,  flight  and  confusion  "  fluctuate  through 
his  pages  in  unknown  agitation."  He  seems  to  have  felt  it  was 
his  last.  It  is  the  confusion  of  retreat.  I  ha-d  as  well  take  it  up 
by  the  order  of  pages  and  paragraphs — for  there  is  surely  no  other 
line  of  argument.     It  is  the  order  of  confusion  and  of  final  rout. 

1.  First,  then,  as  to  his  "  6eL"  Though  I  declined  it,  I 
accepted  his  reference,  and  I  am  now  prepared  to  fulfil  my  pro- 
mise, in  St.  John's  Church,  the  day  after  he  shall  preach  the 
eulogy  of  the  Neapolitan  queen,  if  he  pleases:  viz.,  to  show  the 
forgeries  and  frauds  by  addition,  erasure  and  perversion  in  twenty 
places  in  Donevan's  Translation  of  that  very  Catechism  which 
Mr.  Hughes  recommends  to  his  flock,  and  is  the  standard  of  the 
Romish  Church!  And  what  does  Mr.  Hughes  say  in  reply? 
Why  that  I  got  the  facts  from  Cramp.  But  still,  are  they  facts  ? 
He  dare  not  deny  them  again.  I  got  them  fresh  from  the  foun- 
tains, and  will  confront  him  with  them,  if  he  will  name  the  day 
and  the  place.  He  asks,  what  have  these  charges  to  do  with  the 
question?  I  reply,  much.  He  once  denied  them.  Besides,  they 
prove  that  Roman  Catholic  writers  are,  as  a  body,  unless  they 
be  laymen,  not  to  be  trusted.  They  commit  forgeries  on  their 
own  books ;  and  on  the  word  of  God.     Thus  they  are  not  to  be 


527 

trusted.  I  refer  to  my  fourth  speech  on  the  second  question 
(the  last  but  one)  for  a  crowd  of  unnoticed  proofs  of  this  awful 
fact, 

2.  The  charge,  that  we  hold  communion  with  European  Pres- 
byterian Churches  which  hold  persecuting  doctrines,  is  pressed 
by  Mr.  H.  with  much  triumph — to  prove  that  we  hold  the  same 
doctrines  ourselves.  I  had  often  said  that  the  American  Presby- 
terians had  rejected  and  expunged  several  clauses /?'om  the  TVest- 
minster  Confession  of  Faith  which  were  intolerant,  and  I  proved 
the  fact  that  they  made  this  change  before  the  adoption  of  the 
American  Constitution,  which  shows  that  it  was  a  matter  of 
choice,  and  not  oi  force,  (as  Mr.  Hughes  once  said).  Mr.  Hughes 
replies,  that  we  have  fellowship  with  those  who  hold  these  perse- 
cuting doctrines,  to  prove  that  we  at  heart  approve  them,  though 
we  profess  to  have  renounced  them.  He  says — "  And  if  they 
have  changed,  as  he  asserts,  let  the  next  General  Assembly 
break  comrmmion  with  those  sister  Presbyteries  in  Europe,  in 
whose  Confessions  of  Faith  the  principle  of  intolerance  is  avowed 
as  a  doctrine.'*^  Now,  the  truth  is,  Mr.  Hughes,  ignorantly  I 
would  fain  hope,  has  entirely  falsified  the  facts.  We  hold  no 
such  communion  with  any  such  churches.  The  Church  of  Scot- 
land has  an  establishment,  and  retains  the  intolerant  doctrine. 
The  consequence  is  we  have  no  communion  with  her.  The  Irish 
Church  (the  Synod  of  Ulster)  receives  the  regium  donum.  We 
have  no  reciprocation  with  her ;  of  which  we  have  had  a  notable 
illustration  in  the  person  of  our  late  delegate  to  the  British  churches. 
He  went  as  a  delegate  from  the  General  Assembly  of  our  church 
to  the  Congregational  Churches  of  England  and  Wales — but 
not  to  the  Scotch — not  to  the  Irish  Presbyterian  Church.  So 
much  for  the  historical  verity  of  the  gentleman. 

But  now  for  his  argument.  Is  he  honest  in  the  use  of  it?  Is 
it  good,  where  the  facts  support  it?  He  says  it  is.  Then  it 
settles  the  question  between  us.  For  is  he  not  in  full  and  direct 
communion  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  has  an  estab- 
lishment? Is  not  the  American  papal  (what  a  contradiction  in 
terms !)  church  under  the  Pope  ?  And  is  not  the  Pope  head  of 
an  established  church,  and  a  temporal  prince  also  ?  And  has 
not  Mr.  Hughes  boasted  that  the  papal  church  is  the  same  and 
one  all  over  the  world — in  Spain,  and  Austria,  and  every  where? 
And  are  not  the  churches  in  these  empires  intolerant,  and  exclu- 
sive, and,  by  his  own  con^esBion,  persecuting?  Yet  he  has  fel- 
lowship with  them  all!  Priests  from  them  all  pass  into  direct 
connexion  with  the  American  Catholics !  They  are  received 
ad  eundem  at  St.  John's !  Yea,  and  the  bishops  of  this  diocese, 
and  bishops  of  every  diocese,  in  this  country,  hold  their  offices 
directly  from  the  Pope,  a  foreign  prince,  and  the  head  of  a 
state  establishment .'  This  I  say  then  settles  the  question,  by 
Mr.  Hughes's  own  showing.     For  he  says  of  us,   '« Let  them 


528 

condemn  it  (intolerance)  as  an  error  in  doctrine.  If  they  do 
not — it  is  their  own;  and  the  gentleman  makes  himself  ridicu- 
lous when  he  denies  it.^^ 

I  will  add,  that  the  Reformed  Dutch  Cliurch  has  explicitly  de- 
nounced the  doctrine  of  intolerance;  and  I  have  the  public  act  of 
her  Synod  containing  it  in  my  possession.  Here  is  another  slip 
in  the  gentleman's  statements. 

3.  The  gentleman  affects  to  be  much  shocked  at  my  allusion 
to  the  horrific  practice  of  ante-natum  baptisms.  It  is  indeed  a 
shocking  subject.  But  if  such  things  are  too  shocking  to  tell^ 
how  shocking  to  do?     If  the  gentleman  will  only  publicly  deny, 

1.  That,  by  their  doctrine,  unbaptized  infants  cannot  be  saved: 

2.  That  they   do   not   practice   in   his    Church    such   baptisms: 

3.  And  that  he  never  did  himself  perform  such  a  baptism,  I  will 
give  the  public  such  proof  as  shall  make  him  blush — or  publicly 
apologise  for  my  statement. 

4.  As  TO  MARRIAGE.  Mr.  Hughcs  has  entirely  evaded  the 
argument  contained  in  my  last  speech.  To  it,  without  repeating, 
I  refer  the  reader.  How  amazing,  that  he  can  leave  untouched 
such  a  body  of  facts!  He  says  ''Catholics  hold  m.arriage  to  be  a 
sacrament,  which  cannot  be  rightly  administered  except  in  the 
presence  of  a  parish  priest.  But  this  is  only  where  the  discipline 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  is  received,  which  it  is  not  in  this  coun- 
try." The  latter  clause  is  not  only  gratuitous,  but  a  mere  fiction. 
On  page  313  of  Donevan's  Translation  of  the  Council  of  Trent's 

Catechism,  it  is  said  expressly, "  Without  the  presence  of 

the  parish  priest,  or  of  some  otJier  priest  commissioned  by  him 
or  by  the  ordinary,  and  that  of  two  or  three  witnesses,  there  can 
be  no  marriage.''^  Now  does  this  say  one  word  about  " /Ae 
receiving  of  the  discipline  of  the  Council  of  Trent?''''  Not  one 
word.  Mr.  Hughes  well  knows  that  by  his  doctrines  every  mar- 
riage in  Christendom  is  illegitimated  that  has  not  been  performed 
by  a  Catholic  priest!  And  when  he  says,  "whether  it  were 
received  or  noi  it  cannot  afiect  the  civil  right  of  any  one,''^  he 
passed  by  the  jwint  of  the  question.  We  know,  thank  God,  that 
his  holding  our  children  illegitimate,  and  our  civil  contracts  void, 
does  not  make  them  so.  But  the  question  is,  vi'hether  any  man 
that  thinks  so  is  a  fit  person  to  represent  our  rights,  or  make  our 
laws,  in  state  and  national  legislatures?  Does  not  every  man 
who  believes  marriage  to  be  a  sacrament  subject  that  relation 
necessarily  to  the  Church  and  Pope  of  Rome,  and  reject  all  right 
or  fitness  of  the  civil  power  to  judge  of  the  lawfulness  of  mar- 
riage? And  would  not  Mr.  Hughes  treat  any  Catholic  holding 
the  reverse  of  this  as  a  schismatic,  and  ihe  subject  of  discipline? 
And,  then,  can  any  man,  with  these  views,  conscientiously  hold 
an  office  of  trust  in  a  Protestant  country?  I  rejoice  that  some  of 
our  best  citizens  are  Catholics.  But  it  is  little  more  than  nominal 
with  those  who  have  intelligence,  and  they  are,  day  by  day, 


529 

becoming  more  and  more  Protestant  by  the  power  of  truth  and 
public  ojmiion.  And  this  controversy  has  made  Mr.  Hughes,  by- 
necessity,  more  of  a  Protestant  than  the  Pope  will  like.  I  am 
sure  if  this  Discussion  should  reach  Rome,  in  lime,  he  will  get 
the  rod  rather  than  the  staff. 

5.  He  says — "  All  sects  oppose  the  liberty  of  the  press,  by  en- 
deavouring to  exclude  such  publications  as  expose  their  real  or 
supposed  errors^  This  is  most  surprising!  But  is  this  the 
same  thing  with  saying,  "  If  any  one  shall  presume  to  read  or 
possess  the  Bible  urithout  a  written  permission  of  a  bishop  or  in- 
quisitor, he  shall  not  receive  absolution  until  he  shall  have  first 
delivered  up  such  Bible  to  the  ordinary?^''  Is  the  effort,  by  per- 
suasion, to  discourage  the  use  of  a  bad  book,  or  one  we  think 
bad,  the  same  thing  as  forbidding  reading  or  printing,  under 
pains  and  penalties  of  body  and  soul  ?  One  is  papcd,  the  other  is 
Protestant  treatment  of  the  press!  and  not  only  the  press  in 
general,  but  even  the  holy  word  of  God.  Turretine  (Bened.) 
has  said,  "  There  is  no  place  of  mercy  left  to  the  Book  of  God. 
Men  fly  from  the  Gospel,  in  the  Italian  or  Spanish  tongue,  faster 
than  they  would  run  from  the  plague  of  pestilence." 

6.  The  gentleman's  principles  will  leak  out.  He  says, 
"  They  [the  Protestants  at  the  era  of  the  Reformation]  attacked 
the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and,  in  doing  so,  in  those 
times,  and  countries,  they  attacked  the  leligion  of  the  people  at 
large,  and  the  laws  of  the  state."  Now,  at  this  period,  the  Ro- 
man Church  had  every  thing  in  its  power.  So  it  had  been  for 
ages.  There  had  been  a  full  opportunity  to  try  its  "principles. 
All  (he  says)  were  Catholics.  And  he  exults  that,  though  this 
was  so,  they  shed  so  little  blood.  He  forgets  "  the  cdmost  infinite 
number^"*  of  poor  heretics,  whom  Bellarmine  tells  us  the  church 
had  put  to  death.  After  they  were  extirpated,  tlie  church  ceased 
to  kill.  "  Solitudinem  faciunt,  pacem  appellant,"  But  as  they 
possessed  all  the  power,  so  they  acted  out  their  principles.  And 
what  were  they  ?  As  the  gentleman  says,  "  they  heal  possession. '^^ 
And  how  did  they  exercise  their  power?  Why,  as  he  says, 
"  the  Catholic  religion  was  the  law  of  the  state.'''  Yes  ;  of  every 
state  on  earth  in  their  power.  I  challenge  the  example  of  one 
state  in  the  world,  for  the  ages  of  their  dominion,  where  they  did 
not  establish  their  religion  by  law  where  they  had  the  power. 
And  will  they  not  do  the  same  here  if  they  ever  become  able  ? 
The  gentleman  says,  they  change  not.  Their  system  has  worked 
so  for  AGES,  and  EVERYWHERE,  with  not  one  exception, 
not  one,  for  ages  on  ages.'  Is  not  its  very  genius,  essence,  and 
nature,  intolerance  and  domination?  But  the  strange  part  is  to 
come.  He  pleads  their  usurped  power  as  a  reason  for  its  con- 
tinued exercise;  and  even  as  making  its  exercise  lawful!  '*  At 
the  origin  of  the  Reformation,  so  called,  the  Catholics  were  in 
possession.     This  is  important.     T/ie  Reformers  possessed  no- 

67 


530 

thing They  had  nothing — they  claimed  to  possess 

themselves  of  the  rights  of  other  s^  "  Had  nothing!"  Had  they 
not  their  bodies,  their  souls,  their  country,  their  rights,  their 
Bible  ?  "  Had  nothing.^''  No  !  "  They  claimed  to  possess  them- 
selves of  the  rights  of  others  _,•"  that  is,  they  claimed  that  the 
Catholic  religion  should  cease  to  be  the  "  law  of  the  state'''* — so 
that  they  should  not  be  denied  liberty  of  thought,  worship,  print- 
ing, and  discussion.  But,  as  the  gentleman  more  than  intimates, 
"  these  were  the  rights  of  others^  This  was  the  very  language 
of  the  papists  at  the  diet  of  Spires  in  1529  !  It  was  for  liberty 
the  Reformers  contended.  It  was  liberty  that  the  diet  refused 
them  ;  liberty  of  ivorship,  and  of  discussion,  "  as  it  ivould  inter- 
fere with  the  rights  of  others  ;"  that  is,  of  the  Catholics,  "  who  had 
possession,''''  as  Mr.  Hughes,  repeating  the  language  of  that  day, 
has  said.  It  is  an  ever-memorable  fact,  that  the  name  of  Pro- 
testant was  then  and  there  acquired  by  the  illustrious  men  who 
PROTESTED  AGAINST  TYRANNY — in  rcfcrencc  to  their  religious  and 
civil  rights.  The  doctrinal  question  was  incidental.  It  was 
LIBERTY  they  sought,  and  against  oppression  they  protested. 

It  may  be  as  well  here,  as  elsewhere,  to  say,  that  the  boasted 
toleration  of  the  papal  colony  of  Maryland  is,  in  a  great  measure, 
an  empty  name.  For,  in  the  first  place,  they  well  knew,  from 
the  strong  Protestant  power  prevailing  in  the  parent  country,  and 
from  the  very  terms  of  the  grant,  popery  could  never  be  establish- 
ed by  law  in  any  colony  of  the  British  crown.  Again,  It  was 
only  toleration — not  true  liberty.  And  still,  again,  Unitarians 
were  put  to  death  by  law.  (1)  Now,  was  this  liberty?  Is  this 
ground  of  boast?  When  Mr.  Hughes  accuses  Presbyterians  of 
murdering  "  Quakers,"  and  drowning  "  Baptists,"  I  can  only  say, 
that  he  falsifies  history,  and  slanders  their  good  name.  And 
while  we  mourn  over  the  ill-judged  and  guilty  persecutions  of 
New  England,  in  that  day  of  the  dawning  of  freedom,  it  ill  be- 
comes that  man,  whose  ^' frock  of  office'''  has  descended  to  him  on 
a  sea  of  blood,  (innocent  blood,  shed  by  his  Church,)  to  stand  up 
and  mouth  the  heavens,  about  the  intolerances  of  a  few  peeled  and 
scattered  Puritans,  who  had  learned  from  Rome  the  spirit  of  in- 
tolerance, and  whose  sins  in  that  way,  compared  with  those  of 
Rome,  making  every  allowance  for  disparity  of  numbers,  and  of 
duration,  were  about  as  one  to  one  million.  Rome  is  estimated, 
by  impartial  historians,  to  have  caused  the  extinction  of  about 
60,000,000  of  our  race.  Rome  has  put  to  death  more  men,  by 
her  crusades,  inquisitions,  &;c.,  than  all  Protestant  Christendom 
combined,  have  shed  drops  of  human  blood  for  the  same  guilty 
cause;  and  papal  Rome  h^^ far, far  outdone  joagaw  Rome  in  the 
work  of  persecution  and  inhuman  butchery. 

7.    He    says,  the  Presbyterians   have  existed  for   only  three 

(1)  See  Langford,  pp.  27-32. 


531 

hundred  years ;  and  that,  if,  with  their  spirit,  Ihey  had  held  the 
world  as  long  as  the  Catholics  have,  they  would  have  butchered 
the  race. 

That  Presbyterians  have,  171  former  days,  persecuted,  and  been 
intolerant,  I  have  already  acknowledged.  That  papists  hate 
them,  I  do  not  wonder,  especially  Calvin,  and  the  brave  Holland- 
ers, and  the  indomitable  Scotch,  English,  and  Irish  Presbyterians. 
Well  do  the  papists  remember  their  love  of  liberty.  They  cannot 
forget  or  forgive  it.  Dryden  has  said  all  in  a  word — he  too  a 
Catholic. 

"  So  presbytery  arid  its  pestileritial  zeal, 
Ca7i  only  Jlou7Hsh  in  a  common  weal — 
In  Jenny  Holland,  and  in  fruitful  Tiveed, 
.And  like- the  first,  the  last  effects  to  be, 
Drarvn  to  the  dregs  of  a  democracy.'^ 

Admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  Presbyterianism, 
which  is  as  old  as  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  has  existed  only  three 
hundred  years,  and  that  it  arose  at  the  era  of  the  Reformation,  has 
it  not  been  prominent  among  the  struggles  for  liberty  ever  since  ? 
Has  it  not  been  persecuted  most  dreadfully  by  Catholics,  and  by 
Episcopalians  ;  and  again  and  again?  Does  the  gentleman  pretend 
to  say  that  they  have  ever — yes,  ever  begun  the  work  of  intoler- 
ance ?  Tell  me  where!  Tell  me  when  !  Has  he  forgotten  the 
scenes  of  the  Low  Countries ;  the  bloody  tragedies  of  Scotland, 
acted  out  first  by  Catholics,  and  then  by  Episcopalians?  Has  he 
forgotten  the  butcheries  of  Ireland,  and  the  persecutions  in  Vir- 
ginia ?  Is  the  name  of  Huguenot  erased  from  his  pretermitting 
memory  ?  Has  he  forgot  that  he  has  already  said,  that  Presbyte- 
rians never  had  "  Caesar^''  in  their  power  but  once  ?  Yet  now  he 
asks  me  to  show  him  when  they  had  the  civil  power  ("  Caesar") 
in  their  hands,  and  did  not  persecute  ?  He  knows  the  Church 
never  had  the  poiver.  He  knows  the  acts  he  charges  on  the 
Church  are  falsely  charged  by  him  on  her :  that  they  were  acts 
o{  Parliaments  ;  and  conscious  of  the  glaring  falsehood,  he  antici- 
pates detection  by  admitting  it.  He  knows  that  the  cases  he 
cites,  even  admitting  all  said  to  be  true,  (a  great  stretch  of  charity 
to  a  Jesuit,)  that  they  were  acts  of  self-defence,  or  of  retaliation. 
He  also  knows  that  I  have  freely  and  fully  condemned  every  per- 
secuting act  o{  Presbyterians  and  Protestants  ;  and  that,  (as  I  have 
proved,)  the  intolerant  articles,  two  in  nu^nber,  contained  in  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  were  voluntarily  and  unanimous- 
ly erased  before  the  adoption  of  the  American  Constitution ;  and 
that  the  terms  of  our  Confession  are  full,  various,  and  clear,  on 
the  whole  subject — not  merely  of  toleration,  but  of  protection  of 
all  religions — all  having  equal  rights.  He  insists,  that  when  we 
say  "  kings  should  be  nursing  fathers"  of  the  Church  of  our  com- 
mon Lord,  we  mean  a  state  establishment  of  Presbyterianism. 


532 

I  do  not  wonder  that  he  invohmiarily  enforces  his  right  of  inter- 
pretation. But  right  glad  are  we,  that  we  are  not  in  Rome, — or 
we  might  have  some  of  those  knotty  arguments  which  appeal  to 
the  quivering  flesh,  and  those  stone-dead,  knock-down  arguments 
of  which  Baxter  speaks.  Being  in  America,  where  persuasion 
is  the  oviXy  force,  and  discussion  the  only  way,  we  must  claim  to 
tell  what  our  creed  is  ourselves.  And  as  Mr.  Hughes  has  tried 
discussion  from  the  press,  and  then  left  it,  half-complete  ;  (1)  has 
then  tried  the  rostrum,  and  still  refused  to  abide  by  its  reports  ;  (2) 
and  finally,  has  fled  the  field  midway  the  manuscript  preparation 
of  his  debate,  we  must  do  the  best  we  can  alone,  and  on  the  Pro- 
testant and  American  plan  of  argument. 

And  now,  as  to  the  three  hundred  years  of  our  acknowledged 
existence,  where  has  liberty  been  found  ?  where  science  ?  where 
enterprise,  commerce,  order,  and  public  prosperity  ?  Has  it  been 
in  Italy?  In  Spain  ?  In  Catholic  Germany  ?  In  Catholic  Ireland? 
Has  England,  has  Holland,  has  Scotland,  have  the  United  States 
of  America,  been  Catholic  since  the  Reformation  ?  No  !  Protest- 
ant !  Have  these  States  been  Presbyterian  ?  In  them  Presbyte- 
rians have  abounded.  Have  these  Slates  been  famed  for  what  was 
eminent  in  all  that  can  bless  and  exalt  a  nation  ?  Confessedly 
foremost !  Let  Mr.  Hughes  deny  it  if  he  can.  He  will  not  pre- 
tend to  do  it. 

But  reverse  the  scene.  Go  to  Spain  now.  There  the  priests 
especially,  the  monks  and  Jesuits,  are  ranged  with  Don  Carlos 
against  the  party  that  is  struggling  for  liberty  and  light.  Go  see 
the  tnonasteries,  how,  in  the  judgment  of  the  people,  (they,  too, 
called  Catholic,)  are  demolished  by  thousands  as  the  sinks  of  cor- 
ruption, as  castles  of  despotism,  as  the  strong  holds  of  priestly 
domination  ? 

Or  will  you  survey  Portugal  ?  There  you  see  the  Pope  de- 
nouncing, by  a  public  appeal,  the  reformation  of  Don  Pedro,  and 
giving  the  power  of  his  arm  to  the  monster  Miguel.  Hear  him 
denounce  the  new  government  for  daring  to  interfere,  in  its  own 
territory,  for  the  regulation  of  the  priesthood  ! 

Go  to  Italy,  and  see  the  Pope  a  public  despot,  his  throne  rest- 
ing on  the  parks  of  Austrian  artillery;  collecting  his  taxes  in  the 
name  of  the  fisherman,  as  the  successor  of  Peter  and  vicar  of 
Jesus ;  one  day  blessing  the  horses  and  the  asses  of  the  city  in 
the  name  of  the  holy  Trinity,  to  keep  off  evil  spirits  and  pestilence ; 
the  next,  cursing  liberty  in  the  name  of  God,  and  sending  a 
bishop's  ring  to  John  Hiighes,  or  a  cardinal's  hat  to  John,  Bishop 
of  Charleston. 

There  is  one  point  in  this  Discussion,  of  very  great  conse- 
quence, which  Mr.  Hughes  has  continually  endeavoured  to  keep 

(1)  See  the  former  Controversy. 

(2)  See  our  correspondence  on  the  subject. 


533 

out  of  view.  It  is  this  :  that  American  Protestants  differ  on  the 
whole  question  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  very  widely  from 
European  Protestants ;  whereas.  Catholics  being  subject  to  an 
European  head,  and  being  one  and  unchangeable,  are  the  same 
here  as  in  Rome,  and  the  same  now  as  they  were  at  the  Reforma- 
tion of  Luther, 

I  therefore  never  did,  and  never  would,  undeilake  to  defend 
our  ancestry  in  those  things  which  were  intolerant;  but  have, 
with  all  true  American  Protestants,  rejected  and  reprobated  those 
things.  Hence,  gentlemen,  I  have  often,  very  often,  when  I  knew 
Mr.  Hughes  was  slandering  European  Presbyterians,  passed  on, 
since  that  was  not  the  question;  and  since  I  knew  full  well  that 
he  wished  by  that  means  to  call  7ne  off  frotn  the  true  question, 
which  is  American  Presbyterianism.  If  I  had  followed  him 
through  his  distortions-  of  the  history  of  European  Protestants 
(for  half  the  cases  he  has  adduced  were  not  Presbyterian  at  all) 
I  should  have  had  no  time  left  to  exhibit  the  great  principles 
involved  in  the  Discussion,  nor  to  illustrate  the  grounds  on  which 
J^merican  Presbyterians  rest  their  system. 

Now  it  is  well  known  that  American  Episcopalians  are  not 
chargeable  with  ihe  persecutions  of  their  British  ancestry;  and, 
if  I  mistake  not,  they  have  formally  and  explicity  renounced  the 
doctrine  of  intolerance,  and  of  establishmeyits.  Suppose,  then, 
that  John  Hughes,  in  the  superlativeness  of  his  impudence,  should 
approach  the  venerated  father  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church, 
Bishop  White,  and  should  say  to  him — "  Sir,  besides  being  a 
heretic,  whom  I  denounce  as  such  every  time  I  recite  the  regular 
services  of  our  mass-house,  as  incapable  of  salvation,  while  out  of 
the  true  faith,  I  charge  you  with  being  an  enemy  to  liberty, 
because  your  Episcopal  fathers  persecuted  and  even  burned  Ca- 
tholics and  Presbyterians,  and  because  you  are  an  Episcopalian!" 
But  the  meek  and  venerable  man  replies — "  Sir,  you  ought  to 
know  that  American  Episcopalians  have,  in  their  public  formula- 
ries and  standards,  condemned  all  intolerance,  and  all  religious 
establishments,  as  nnii- Christian,  and  anti-American.^^  The  ill- 
bred  Jesuit  might  say,  as  he  is  very  much  accustomed  to  do, 
"  Sir,  you  lie,''^ — "  you  are  not  sincere — your  creed  used  to  mean 
very  differently — and,  under  it,  you  may  still  persecute,  and  have 
an  establishment,  and  oppress  Irish  and  all  other  Catholics.^^ 
Just  so  he  has  said  of  Presbyterians. 

But  reverse  the  case.  How  is  it  with  you,  Mr.  Hughes  ?  Have 
you  renounced  the  intolerant  doctrines  of  European  papists? 
Mr.  Hughes — The  Holy  Catholic  Church,  and  its  faith,  vnthout 
which  none  can  be  saved — never  changes.  Have  you  renounced 
the  doctrine  of  church  and  state,  as  now  illustrated  a?id  enforced 
in  every  country  on  earth  ivhere  Catholics  have  the  power,  and  as 
now  sustained  in  the  person  of  the  Pope,  your  lord  and  master  ? 
Mr.  Hughes — All  Catholics,  every  where,  are  one  people.     We 


534 

receive  our  doctrines  and  offices  from  the  holy  father,  the  Pope, 
ivho  is  the  head  of  the  universal  church,  and  centre  of  unity. 

Such,  then,  is  the  true  state  of  the  question  ;  and,  until  Ameri- 
can Catholics  renoimce  the  Pope,  and  his  system,  and  give  up 
the  doctrine  of  an  infallible,  unchangeable  church,  it  is  clear  that 
they  must  hold,  as  they  now  do,  anti-American  doctrines.  We 
have  abundantly  proved  this  already.  We  desire  to  leave  it  very 
prominently  in  the  view  of  every  reader  of  this  Discussion. 

8.  As  to  the  American  Bible  Society.  The  gentleman  knows 
how  fully  I  exposed  his  slanders,  during  the  late  oral  debate. 
Now  he  flies  the  course  before  we  reach  that  stage  of  the  ques- 
tion ;  and  yet  asks  why  I  am  silent  about  it.  All  I  need  now  say 
is,  that  the  whole  gross  and  abusive  attack  on  that  noble  institu- 
tion is  founded  on  this  fact,  that  the  American  Bible  Society 
has  omitted  the  fabulous  and  uninspired  Apocrypha— which, 
of  course,  appears  on  the  face  of  every  Bible;  as  the  omitted 
parts  make  about  a  hundred  and  sixty  chapters,  it  can  hardly 
be  called  a  '\fraud.'^ 

9.  As  to  Faber.  I  meant  to  say  that  Faber''s  name  was  above 
the  charge  of  ignorance  and  fraud;  and  that,  as  Mr.  Hughes  had 
done  me  the  honour  to  put  me  with  him  "  in  the  same  condem- 
nation," I  merely  remarked,  that  I  should  be  quite  as  likely  to 
be  believed  on  Faber's  testimony,  as  disbelieved  on  Mr.  Hughes's. 
But  it  is  not  only  Hughes  against  Faher ;  it  is  Hughes  against 
truth.  Not  one  word,  or  one  syllable,  on  that  whole  subject,  as 
uttered  by  Mr.  Hughes,  is  true. 

10.  As  to  the  Sunday  School  Union.  He  finds  he  has  unhappily 
met,  in  its  noble  halls,  as  it  diffuses  to  millions  the  bread  of  life, 
such  men  as  Alexander  Henry,  and  John  Sergeant,  and  Daniel 
Webster,  and  Theodore  Frelinghuysen,  and  Robert  Ralston.  No 
wonder  he  starts  back;  and  hides  his  dagger;  and  refuses  his 
support  to  his  original  assertions.  Strange  !  and  yet  not  strange, 
when  we  remember  who,  and  where  he  is,  and  what  he  has  been 
doing. 

11.  Calvin  had  too  much  to  do  with  the  direct  exposure  of 
anti-Christ,  as  he  rose  to  view  before  him,  to  have  much  leisure 
or  need  to  trace  his  features  in  the  Apocalypse.  But  perhaps  the 
gentleman  does  not  knoiv  (for  the  Fifth  Lateran  Council,  in  its 
eleventh  session,  forbade  its  priests  to  preach  concerning  the 
coming  of  anti-Christ,  especially  to  fix  the  time  of  it)  that  Pas- 
torini  (Dr.  Walmsly,  a  Catholic  minister)  had  admitted  that  Rome 
is  to  be  the  seat  of  cCnti-Christ.  This  is  yielding  the  whole 
question.  For,  either  the  Pope  is  he,  or  else,  if  anti-Christ  is  to 
supplant  the  Pope  from  being  head  of  "  the  true  church,^^  then 
the  true  church  will  have  failed.  Certain  it  is,  that  anti-Christ 
and  the  Pope  cannot  both  reign  in  Rome,  except  as  they  are  one ; 
and  they  are  so  near  akin  that  it  will  require  a  dispensation  to 
allow  their  nuptials. 


535 

12.  Poor  Mr.  Ansley!  I  named  him  not — at  first.  On  the 
contrary,  my  allusion  to  him  was  anonymous — for  those  reasons 
of  delicacy  which  Mr.  Hughes  affects  to  feel.  It  was  Mr.  Hughes 
who  dragged  his  name  to  light.  It  was  in  St.  John's  (I  learned) 
that  this  man  renounced  Protestantism;  and  under  the  direct 
auspices  of  Mr.  Hughes.  The  reason  for  naming  such  cases,  is, 
that  the  direct  effect,  and  even  requirement,  of  popery  is  that 
priests  should  have  no  ivives.  Hence,  before  a  married  man 
can  enter  the  priesthood  of  Rome,  he  must  leave  his  loife,  us  a 
wife  forever — whether  she  ivill  or  not.  Hence  it  is  the  asylum 
of  so  many  villains,  who  grow  weary  of  one  wife — but  may  keep 
twenty  concubines.  It  is  an  anti-social  and  abominable  doctrine,  a 
disgrace  to  the  church  and  all  its  priesthood.  And  it  is  high  time, 
indeed,  that  the  holy  wrath  and  pure  benevolence  and  papal  deli- 
cacy of  a  renegado  Jesuit,  should  burn  against  me  because  I  inti- 
mate that  the  doctrine  of  celibacy  parts  husbands  from  wives,  and 
beggars  helpless  babes — when  the  same  Jesuit  is  seeking,  far  and 
near,  to  spread  this  very  doctrine,  and  these  very  effects;  and 
exults,  like  a  hungry  tiger,  when  he  can  thus  prey  upon  the  cre- 
dulity or  domestic  misery  of  some  fanatical  Protestant!  I  spurn, 
before  the  universe,  the  hypocrisy  and  baseness  of  such  a  system, 
and  feel  it  to  be  my  duty,  my  privilege,  and  my  joy,  to  hold  up 
such  infamous  principles  and  practices  to  the  detestation  of  man- 
kind. And  if  the  gentleman  will  go  to  Burlington,  N.  J.,  he  will 
there  find  a  full  confirmation  of  all  that  I  have  said,  in  the  honest 
indignation  of  a  thousand  bosoms. 

And  I  hereby  publish  the  dignified  letter  of  Bishop  Doane,  be- 
cause Mr.  Hughes's  impertinence  makes  it  a  duty,  and  the  Bishop 
kindly  allows  it.  I  pity  Mr.  Ansley,  May  God  teach  him  his 
duty  to  his  family,  and  the  great  sin  of  deserting  ''the  wife  of  his 
youth.'''' 

13.  Next  we  have  Mr.  Barnes  and  the  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia, and  Mr.  Hughes,  good  man,  with  his  crocodile  tears! 
How  he  wonders  at  oppression!  The  inquisitors  would  not  do 
so!  No!  What  unheard  of  cruelty  !  It  far  exceeds  the  burning 
of  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague  !  The  massacre  of  St,  Bartho- 
lomew's night  did  not  equal  it!  I  hardly  think  Mr.  Barnes  will 
bottle  Mr.  Hughes's  tears,  or  thank  him  for  the  manner  of  his 
notice.  However  that  may  be,  if  Mr.  Hughes  had  read  the  trial  he 
would  have  known  my  views  of  it;  and  whatever  his  views  of  it, 
this  is  certain,  Mr.  Barnes  had  a  trial  offered  to  him  in  the 
Synod,  and  refused.  He  then  appealed  to  a  higher  court,  and  to 
it  the  case  goes.  He  had  already  been  tried  in  a  court  below.  But 
how  did  the  priest  in  Wilmington  (Del.)  a  few  years  ago  fare, 
whose  sin  I  will  not  shock  Mr.  Hughes's  ears  by  reciting  1  Did 
he  get  a  trial?  No!  Did  the  church  in  this  country  cover  his 
sin?  Oh  yes!  It  was  indelicate  to  publish  it;  and  too  cruel  to  try 
him.    He  was  chased  to  Rome  by  a  wily  prelacy  which  well  knows 


536 

how  to  hide  iniquity ,  and  to  oppress  the  weak.  The  Pope  would 
have  saved  the  Synod  all  this  vast  round  of  trouble,  trial,  appeal 
and  discussion,  by  cutting  the  knot  and  the  neck  at  the  same  blow. 

14.  His  reasoning  on  our  prayers  is  truly  farcical.  We  are 
enjoined  he  says  by  our  confession  to  pray,  "  that  the  church  may 
he  countenanced  and  maintained  by  the  civil  magistrate.''^  But 
the  same  book  he  says  declares,  that  the  church  is  composed  of 
those  who  profess  the  true  religion.  And  Presbyterianism  is  the 
true  religion.  Therefore  we  pray  for  an  establishment  !  I  know 
no  better  proof  of  the  barrenness  of  his  field  of  argument  than  such 
logic.  This  is  the  secret  of  his  late  retreat.  He  was  run  out  of 
matter.  But  let  us  look  at  the  best  he  has  to  give.  In  the  first 
place,  we  pray  that  God  would  bless  and  maintain,  and  cause  the 
civil  magistrate  to  maintain  and  countenance,  all  Christian 
churches.  There  is  not  one  word  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  like 
the  assertion  that  we  alone  are  the  true  church.  On  the  contrary 
it  is  expressly  and  repeatedly  declared,  (as  already  proved)  that 
we  are  only  one  branch  of  the  universal  church.  The  Jews  and 
Catholics  are  the  only  bigots  on  this  subject.  It  is  a  part  of  Mr. 
Hughes's  creed  **  that  out  of  the  true  Catholic  faith  none  can  he 
saved.*'  Not  so  with  us.  Yet  on  this  false  statement  of  his,  turns 
his  profound  argument.  Again,  when  we  pray  that  the  civil  ma- 
gistrate may  do  so,  it  is  but  saying  in  other  words,  so  far  as 
American  Churches  are  concerned,  Oh,  Lord,  perpetuate  the  Ame- 
rican Constitution  which  protects  ihy  people  in  their  unalienable 
rights,  and  which  is  the  peculiar  foe  of  anti-Christian  and  papal 
domination  over  the  consciences  of  thy  creatures ! ! !  But  I  am 
ashamed  to  stoop  to  such  petty  and  puerile  trifling.  Yet  he  be- 
lieves this  to  be  profound,  dittd  if  1  had  passed  it  by,  it  might  have 
been  trumpeted  as  unanswerable. 

15.  As  to  Maria  Monk,  I  have  not  named  her.  It  seems 
some  of  the  holy  fathers  liked  her  better  than  Mr.  Hughes  does. 
I  never  rest  great  principles  on  insulated  cases.  But  surely  it  is 
very  needless  for  any  body  to  invent  stories  about  nunneries 
and  monasteries,  while  they  are  now  demolishing  them  by  thou- 
sands in  Spain,  &lq,.  for  their  corruptions  and  opposition  to 
the  best  interests  of  states;  and  when  the  blackest  page  of  history 
is  that  which  records  their  character.  But  more  of  this  hereafter. 
I  remark  again,  if  Maria  Monk  befcdse  it  isnoiv  easy  to  show  it, 
and  so,  to  do  it,  as  to  identify  ihe  propagators  of  the  forgery.  For 
I  find  in  the  **  Protestant  Vindicator''  of  this  lueek,  the  FOL- 
LOWING CHALLENGE,  which  I  commend  to  Mr.  Hughes's 
chivalry,  and  love  to  his  church  and  her  institutions. 

*'  Challenge. — The  Roman  Prelates  and  Priests  of  Montreal ; 
Messrs.  Conroy,  Quarter,  and  Schneller,  of  New  York;  Messrs. 
Fenwick  and  Byrne  of  Boston  ;  Mr.  Hughes  of  Philadelphia;  the 
Arch  Prelate  of  Baltimore,  and  his  subordinate  Priests;  and  Car- 
dinal England  of  Charleston,  with  all  other  Roman   Priests,  and 


537 

every  Nun,  from  Baffin's  bay  to  the  gulf  of  Mexico,  are  hereby 
challenired  to  meet  an  invesligation  of  the  truth  of  Maria  Monk's 
'Awful  Disclosures,'  before  an  impartial  assembly,  over  vvljich 
shall  preside  seven  gentlemen;  three  to  be  selected  by  the  Roman 
Priests,  three  by  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  New  York  Pro- 
testant Association,  and  the  seventh  as  Chairman,  to  be  chosen 
by  the  six. 

"  An  eligible  place  in  New  York  shall  be  appointed,  and  the  re- 
gulations for  the  decorum  and  order  of  the  meetings,  with  all  the 
other  arrangements,  shall  be  made  by  the  above  gentlemen. 

"  All  communications  upon  this  subject  from  any  of  the  Roman 
Priests  or  Nuns,  either  individually  or  as  delegates  for  their  supe- 
riors, addressed  to  the  Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  New  York 
Protestant  Association,  No.  142  Nassau  street,  New  York,  will 
be  promptly  answered.'-' 

Now  as  Mr.  Hughes  is  expressly  named,  let  him  meet  the  call 
like  a  m^n  ;  or  henceforth  keep  still  at  St.  John's. 

The  previous  remarks  exhaust  the  little  argument  there  is  to 
be  found  in  the  last  speech  of  Mr.  Hughes,  which  he  discharged 
retreating.  For  his  large  assertions  there  needs  no  rebutter.  For 
his  little  arguments,  of  many  heads,  I  refer  to  the  whole  past  dis- 
cussion, as  a  full  reply. 

And  now,  before  1  close  this  article,  it  becomes  my  duty,  in  a 
brief  (and  it  must  be  very  brief)  way  to  present  to  the  public,  a 
a  view  of  the  field  of  argument  over  which  we  passed  iti  the  de- 
bate, and  which  he  has  left  undefended,  and  avowed  indefensible, 
by  his  abrupt  and  irrevocable  withdrawal. 

After  completing  the  argument  as  given  for  substance  in  the 
previous  discussion,  I  proceeded  next  to  show,  that  while  the  papal 
system  is  so  decisively  opposed  to  the  civil,  and  especially  the  re- 
ligious liberty  of  others,  out  of  the  communion  ot'^the  church,''^ 
it  has  bound  its  own  subjects  with  a  series  of  bonds,  which  make 
it  the  most  severe  and  compacted  hierarchy  on  earth.  A  real 
*'  Catholic'^  is  another  name  for  a  slave  for  life.  The  system  is 
so  constructed  in  its  doctrines,  institutions,  and  discipline,  as  to 
receive  a  man  into  bondage  when  he  comes  into  the  world;  to 
lead  him  through  life  in  bondage;  and  send  him  out  of  the  world 
bound  hand  and  foot,  dependent  on  priestly  acts  and  intentions 
whether  he  be  saved  or  lost,  and  whether  if  he  get  into  purgatory 
and  not  into  hell,  he  shall  stay  there  a  long  or  a  short  time,  before 
he  rises  to  Heaven  !  In  another  part  of  this  discussion  we  have  ex- 
posed the  bondage  o^  papal  baptism,  papal  7natrimony,  and  the 
papal  rule  of  faith.  We  now  propose  to  examine  the  bonds  them- 
selves. An  illustration  of  the  system  supported  by  them  is  very 
important — in  proof  that  the  Roman  Church  is  the  enemy  of 
liberty. 

I.    The   creed  and   oath   of    Pius. — In    the    year    1654, 
(after  the  final  rising  of  the  Council  of  Trent,)  Pius  IV.   issued 

68 


538 

a  creed  containing  a  summary  of  the  doctrines  decreed  by  that 
Council — which  was  received  universally  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  ;  and  this  creed,  being  intended  to  publish  and  enforce 
the  decrees  of  that  Council — is  accompanied  by  an  oath  under 
whose  sanction  it  is  to  be  adopted.  The  Bull  of  Pius  IV.  which 
promulgated  this  creed  required  all  doctors,  and  teachers,  and 
heads  of  universities  to  profess  it ;  and  no  election  or  promotion 
was  to  be  considered  valid  without  its  adoption.  Another  bull  re- 
quired all  heads  of  cathedrals,  monastic  institutions,  and  the 
military  orders,  to  profess  this  creed.  Persons  also  received  into 
the  communion  of  the  church  '\from  ivithout,'*^  are  bound  to  adopt 
this  creed.  Dr.  M  ilner  in  his  "  End  of  Controversies,''  chap.  XVI. 
says  "  The  same  creeds,  viz.  the  apostles'  creed,  the  Nicene  creed, 
the  Athanasian  creed,  and  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  drawn 
UP  IN  conformity  with  the  definitions  of  the   Council  of   Trent, 

ARE  EVERY  WHERE  RECITED  AND  PROFESSED,  tO  the  STRICT  LET- 
TER," &c.  But  the  universal  reception  and  binding  authority  of 
this  document  will  hardly  be  denied.  What  then  are  its  con- 
tents ?  After  a  profession  of  faith — after  the  form  of  the  Apostles' 
and  Nicene  creed,  there  is  an  addition  of  some  tivelve  neiv  articles 
as  foreign  to  the  Apostles'  creed  as  to  Christian  truth.  They 
are  as  follows: 

1.  I  most  firmly  admit  and  embrace  apostolical  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal traditions,  and  all  other  observances  and  constitutions  of  the 
same  church. 

2.  I  also  admit  the  sacred  Scriptures  according  to  the  sense 
which  the  holy  mother  church  has  held  and  does  hold,  to  ivhom  it 
belongs  to  judge  of  the  true  sense  and  interpretation  of  the  holy 
Scriptures;  nor  will  I  ever  take  or  interpret  them  otherwise  than 
according  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers.'"'  The  first 
^^o\)is  d\\  \\\e  trash  of  Roman  traditions;  the  second  binds  the 
mind  never  to  think  for  itself  in  religion,  and  adopts  the  impossi- 
ble test  o^  unanimity  among  the  fathers. 

3.  The  third  article  is,  "  I  profess  also  that  there  are  truly  and 
properly  seven  sacraments  of  the  new  law,  instituted  by  Jesus 
Christ,  and  for  the  salvation  of  mankind,  though  not  all  for  every 
one:  to  wit,  Baptisjn,  confirmation,  eucharist,  penance,  extreme 
unction,  orders,  and  matrimony,  and  that  they  corfer  grace. 

4.  The  fourth  adopts  the  definitions  of  the  "  Holy  Council  of 

Trent'' — on  original  sin,  and  justification,  by  the  latter  of  which, 

among  other  things,  it  is  declared  that  "  unthoitt  the  sacrament  of 

Baptism,  which  is  the  sacrament  of  faith,  no  one  can  ever  obtain 

justification,'''  hanging  thus  the  saving  of  the  soul  on  the  arm  of 

the  priest. 

5.  Adopts  the  horrible  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  and  the 
mass;  ^^  that  in  the  mass  there  is  offered  to  God  a  true,  proper, 
and  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  living  and  the  dead'' — making 
every  priest  a  sacrificer  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  thus  again  hanging 
salvation  directly   on  his  act  and  his   alone ;   for   while   in   ex- 


539 

treme  cases,  laymen  may  baptize;  none  in  the  universe,  who  is  not 
a  •'  Catholic  "  priest,  may  or  can  transubstantiate  the  ivafer,  or 
offer  up  the  sacrijice  of  mass,  and  to  this  they  are  bound  by  oath. 

6.  Adopts  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  that  is  temporary  punish- 
ment after  death;  which  is  the  way  to  heaven  for  ihe  faithful 
(Heretics  all  go  to  hell,  as  the  XII.  Article  will  presently  declare,) 
and  this  again,  is  made  to  depend  on  acts  of  men  on  earth,  the 
acts  of  the  priest.  "  The  souls  detained  therein  are  helped  by  the 
suffrages  of  the  faithfid."  By  this  is  meant  the  prayers  (ivell  paid 
for)  of  the  living,  offered  through  the  priests  for  the  souls  of  the 
dead,  to  get  them  out  of  purgatory ;  so  that  for  the  soul  of  his 
father,  his  wife,  or  his  child,  lying  in  all  the  horrors  of  purgatory, 
he  must  employ  the  priest's  official  services,  and  pay  him  for  thenij 
in  order  to  deliver  that  soul  from  torment !  ! 

Could  there  be  a  more  enriching,  or  a  more  binding  doctrine 
than  this?  Hence  a  distinguished  public  man  said  to  a  friend  of 
mine  in  this  city,  while  the  former  Controversy  was  going  on, 
"  The  doctrine  of  purgatory  gives  the  Catholic  priests  great  ad- 
vantage over  the  Protestants^  It  truly  does !  We  have  no  such 
mines  ofivealthfor  the  priesthood,  and  bond  of  slavery  for  the  peo- 
ple. 

7  &  8.  Adopt  and  profess  the  heathen  doctrine  of  worshipping 
(for  it  is  no  less,)  saints  and  their  relics;  the  images  of  Christ,  of 
the  Virgin  Mother  of  God,"  and  of  other  saints ;  yet  this  is  bind- 
ing on  all. 

9.  Professes  faith  in  the  poiocr  of  indulgences.  "I  also  affirm 
that  the  power  of  indulgences  was  left  by  Christ  in  the  church,  and 
that  the  use  of  them  is  most  wholesome  to  a  Christian  people."  They 
have  been  well  called  "  bills  of  exchange  on  purgatory.''''  They 
are  dispensed  by  the  Pope,  through  the  priests.  Being  "a  bundle 
of  licenses  to  commit  sin,"  they  are  popidar-,  being  sold  they  are 
very  profitable,  and  depending  on  the  foreign  will  of  the  Pope, 
they  give  to  his  "keys"  (with  which  he  professes  to  unlock  an 
infinite  treasury  of  merits  of  the  whole  papal  pantheon,  not 
only  the  merits  of  our  Lord,  but  of  all  saints,)  an  unbounded 
power  over  the  people. 

10.  "/  acknoivledge  the  Holy  Catholic,  Apostolic,  Roman 
Church  for  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  churches ;  and  I  pro- 
mise true  obedience  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  successor  to  St.  Peter 
prince  of  the  Apostles  and  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ.^''  "  The  mis- 
tress OF  ALL  CHURCHES."  What  an  epithet  for  a  Christian 
church  !  And  then  this  direct  allegiance  to  the  pope.  Is  it  less 
than  slavery  ? 

11.  "  I  likewise  undoubtedly  receive  and  profess  all  other  things 
delivered,  defined,  and  declared  by  the  sacred  canons  of  general 
Councils.''''  Here  is  a  universal  adoption  of  all  the  persecuting 
canons,  and  all  the  profane,  civil,  and  immoral  legislation  of  all 
the  general  Councils.  "  And  particularly  the  holy  council  of 
Trent, ^'  the  worst  and  last  of  all.     Yet  every  priest  is  bound  on 


540 

oath  to  receive,  ^^  all  things  defined,  delivered,  and  declared^'  by 
that  conventicle ! 

^'  And  I  condemn,  reject,  and  anathematize  all  things  contrary 
thereto,  and  all  heresies  luhich  the  church  has  condemned,  rejected, 
and  anathematized y  Here,  by  wholesale,  they  curse  over  all  their 
curses,  and  in  the  gross,  affirm,  known  or  unknown,  their  direful 
persecutors. 

12.  "  This  true  Catholic  faith,  without  ivhich  no  man  can  he 
saved,  which  I  at  present  freely  profess  and  truly  hold,  the  same  I 
loill  take  care  as  far  as  in  me  lies,  shall  be  most  constantly  held 
and  confessed  hy  me,  whole  and  unviolated,  with  God's  assistance, 
to  the  last  breatii  of  life  ;  and  by  all  my  subjects,  or  those  the  care 
of  whom  in  my  office  belongs  to  me,  shall  be  held,  taught  and 
preached.  I,  THE  SAME  N,  PROMISE,  '  VOW,  AND 
SWEAR;  SO  HELP  ME  GOD,  AND  THESE  HOLY 
GOSPELS."  This  is  peculiarly  the  priest's  article.  He  is 
the  SLAVE  of  the  Pope,  and  a  parish  pope  to  the  people. 

(1)  He  swears  that  there  is  no  salvation  to  those  who  hold  not 
this  creed  ;  as  for  example,  purgatory,  supremacy  of  the  Pope, 

INDULGENCES,  IMAGE    AND    SAINT  WORSHIP,  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 

TRADITIONS  OF  RoME,  &c.  &c.  Was  there  ever  such  exclusive^ 
ness,  such  intolerance,  and  yet  sustained  by  an  oath  1  (2)  He 
swears  to  do  all,  for  life,  that  he  can,  without  ever  restricting  him- 
self to  what  is  j'ight,  to  spread  this  system  among  those  under  his 
care,  or  subject  to  him  !  Then  will  Protestants,  who  know  this, 
ever  trust  their  children  to  "  Catholic"  priest's?  Either  they  will 
"  do  all  that  in  them  lies"  to  make  "  Catholics"  of  their  children, 
or  else  they  are  perjured;  for  they  swear  to  do  this.  (3)  And 
consider  the  bonds  under  which  this  oath  brings  the  conscience 
and  creed  of  every  Roman  priest  upon  earth  !  Bound  by  oath  to 
the  Pope  and  to  the  peculiar  and  exclusive  doctrines  of  the  church; 
bound  by  oath  to  receive  all  the  tyrannic  and  persecuting  decrees 
of  all  the  General  Councils,  and  to  seek  by  all  means  in  their 
reach  the  diffusion  of  these  anti-liberal  principles  !! 

The  last  named  of  these  articles,  as  taken  by  the  priests,  differs 
somewhat  from  the  form  usually  adopted  for  the  profession  of  the 
laity.  That  for  the  laity,  however,  explicitly  declares  that  "  with- 
out this  true  Catholic  faith  none  can  he  saved.'' 

And  now  who  can  look  at  ih'is  jur  amentum,  "oath,"  and  pro- 
fessio  fidei,  ^'profession  of  faith,'''  without  distinctly  perceiving 
how  the  whole  church  is  bound  up  in  bonds  to  the  fearful  hier- 
archy of  Rome,  by  the  creed  of  Pius  IV. 

n.  But  we  pass  to  consider  next,  the  Episcopal  oath  of  alle- 
giance TO  the  Pope. — This  oath,  like  the  Bulla  in  Ccena  Domi- 
ni was  crescent,  augmenting  its  size  and  strictness  with  the  grad- 
ual rise  of  popery  in  the  world.  The  earliest  form  adopted,  con- 
sisted of  seven  particidars,  which  are  still  found  in  the  Corpus 
Juris  Canonici,  (the  body  of  the  canon  law,)  in  the  Deccat.  of  Greg. 
IX.  1.  ii.  title  24.     It  is  much  more  simple,  and  less  rigid  than 


541 

that  afterwards  used,  given  in  full,  in  the  Roman  Pontifical,  and 
extracted  from  it  into  Barrow's  unansioered  Treatise  on  Supremacy. 
This  is  exactly  a  feudal  oath,  and  binds  every  Roman  Catholic 
bishop  on  earth  to  the  foot  of  the  papal  throne.  It  is  as  fol- 
lows : 

"  1,  N,  elect  of  the  church  of  N,  will  henceforward  be  faithful 
and  obedient  to  St.  Peter  the  Apostle,  and  to  the  holy  Roman 
Church  and  to  our  Lord,  the  lord  N,  pope  N,  and  to  his  successors 
canonically  coming  in.  I  will  neither  advise,  consent,  or  do  any 
thing  that  they  may  lose  life  or  member,  or  that  their  persons  may 
be  seized,  or  hands  anywise  laid  upon  them,  or  any  injuries  offer- 
ed to  them  under  any  pretence  whatever.  The  counsel  which  they 
shall  entrust  me  withal,  by  themselves,  their  messengers,  or  letters, 
I  will  not  knowingly  reveal  to  any  to  their  prejudice.  I  will  help 
them  to  defend  and  to  keep  the  Roman  papacy ;  and  the  royalties 
OF  St.  Peter,  saving  my  order,  against  all  men.  The  legate  of 
the  apostolical  see,  going  and  coming,  I  will  honourably  treat 
and  help  in  his  necessities.     The  rights,  honours,  privileges, 

AND      AUTHORITY     OF    THE    HoLY    RoMAN    ClIURCH    OF    OUR    LoRD 

THE  Pope,  and  his  foresaid  successors,  I  loill  endeavour  to  pre- 
serve, defend,  increase,  and  advance.  1  will  not  be  in  any  counsel, 
action,  or  treaty  in  which  shall  be  plotted  against  our  said  lord, 
and  the  Romish  Church,  any  thing  to  the  hurt  or  prejudice  of  their 
persons,  right,  honour,  state,  or  poioer;  and  if  I  shall  know  any 
such  thing  to  be  treated  or  agitated  by  any  whatsoever,  I  will 
hinder  it  to  my  power,  and  as  soon  as  I  can,  will  signify  it  to  our 
said  lord,  or  to  some  other  by  whom  it  may  come  to  his  knowledge. 
The  rules  of  the  holy  fathers,  the  apostolic  decrees,  ordinances,  or 
disposals,  reservations,  provisions,  and  mandates,  I  ivill  observe 
zoith  all  my  might,  and  cause  to  be  observed  by  others.    Heretics, 

SCHISMATICS,    AND    REBELS    TO    OUR    SAID    LOUD,  OR    HIS    FORESAID 
successors,  I  WILL  TO  MY  POWER  PERSECUTE  AND  OPPOSE       I   will 

come  to  a  council  when  I  am  called,  unless  I  gm  hindered  by  a 
canonical  impediment.     I  will  by  myself  in  person  visit  the 

THRESHOLD  OF  THE   APOSTLES    EVERY    THREE    YEARS,  AND  GIVE  AN 
ACCOUNT  TO  OUR  LORD  AND  HIS    FORESAID    SUCCESSORS  OF   ALL    MY 

PASTORAL  OFFICE,  and  of  all  things  anywise  belonging  to  the  state 
of  my  church,  to  the  discipline  of  my  clergy  and  people,  and  lastly 
to  the  salvation  of  souls  committed  to  my  trust;  and  will  in  like 
manner  humbly  receive  and  diligently  execute  the  apostolic  com- 
mands. And  if  I  be  detained  by  a  laioful  impediment,  I  will  per- 
form all  the  things  aforesaid  by  a  certain  messenger,  hereto  special- 
ly impowered,  a  member  of  my  chapter,  or  some  other  in  ecclesiasti- 
cal dignity,  or  else  having  a  parsonage;  or  in  default  of  these,  by 
a  priest  of  the  diocese,  or  in  default  of  one  of  the  clergy,  [of  the 
diocese,]  by  some  other  secular  or  regular  priest  of  approved  in- 
tegrity and  religion,  fully  instructed  in  all  things  above  men- 
tioned. And  such  impediment  I  will  make  out  by  lawful  proofs, 
to  he  transmitted  by  the  foresaid  messenger  to  the  cardinal  pro- 


542 

portent,  of  the  holy  Roman  Churchy  in  the  congregation  of  the 
sacred  council.  The  possessions  belonging  to  my  table  I  will 
neither  sell,  nor  give  away,  nor  mortgage,  nor  grant  anew  in 
fee,  nor  anywise  alienate,  no  not  even  with  the  consent  of  the 
chapter  of  my  church,  without  consulting  the  Roman  pontiff. 
And  if  I  shall  make  any  alienation,  I  will  thereby  incur  the  pen- 
alties contained  in  a  certain  constitution,  put  forth  about  this 
matter.     So  help  me  God  and  these  Holy  Gospels." 

This  is  a  complete  feudal  oath.  No  man  can  take  it  to  the 
Pope  and  be  the  consistent  citizen  of  his  own  country — or  i\\Q  free 
citizen  of  any  country.  How  can  any  Catholic  bishop  maintain  this 
oath  to  the  Pope,  and  be  an  honest  citizen  of  the  United  States  ? 
The  reader  will  please  remember  that  under  these  bonds,  in  the 
memorable  contest  between  the  Pope  and  the  Republic  of  Venice, 
the  Jesuits  all  turned  traitors  and  went  over  to  the  Pope. 

But  we  have  not  room  to  comment;  and  it  is  not  necessary.  It 
speaks  for  itself. 

III.  Another  topic  (which  Mr.  Hughes  has  excluded  by  ab- 
ruptly stopping)  which  was  presented  in  the  debate,  was  that  the 
doctrines  o^  supremacy  and  of  the  priesthood,  made  the  people  the 
bond-slaves  of  the  priesthood. 

The  doctrine  of  supremacy  in  the  words  of  the  Council  of  Flo- 
rence, is  this :  "  That  the  apostolic  chair,  and  Roma^i  high 
priest,  doth  hold  a  primacy  over  the  universal  church  ;  and  that 
the  Roman  high  priest  is  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  the  prince 
of  apostles,  the  true  heir-tenant  of  Christ,  and  the  head  of 
the  church  ;  that  he  is  the  father  and  doctor  of  all  Christians  ; 
and  that  unto  him  in  St.  Peter,  full  power  is  committed  to  feed 
and  direct  the  Catholic  Church  under  Christ ;  according  as  is 
contained  in  the  acts  of  general  councils  and  in  the  holy  canons. ''^ 
And  Leo  X.  (approved  by  the  Lateran  Council  at  the  very  era  of 
the  Reformation),  "  Christ  before  his  departure  from  the  world, 
did  in  solidity  of , the  rock,  institute  Peter  and  his  successors  to 
be  his  lieutenayits,  to  whom  it  is  so  necessary  to  obey,  that  he 
WHO  doth  not  obey  must  die  the  death." 

The  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  makes  a  pope  for  every  parish  ; 
as  that  of  supremacy  makes  a  God  on  earth  of  the  head-pope. 
The  pope  grinds  the  priesthood,  and  they  grind  the  people.  In 
the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  it  is  thus  written,  (1)  " /n 
the  minister  of  God  who  sits  in  the  tribunal  of  penance,  as  his 
legitimate  judge,  he  (the  penitent)  venerates  the  power  and  per- 
son of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  This  is  blasphemy.  Again,  (2) 
"  They  hold  the  place,  and  power  and  authority  of  God  on 
earth."  Again,  (3)  "  The  power  of  consecrating  and  offering 
the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  and  of  remitting  sins,  with 
which  the  priesthood  of  the  new  law  is  invested,  is  such  as  cannot 
be  comprehended  by  the  human  mind,  still  less  can  it  be  equalled 

(1)  Donevan's  Trans,  page  342.        (2)  Page  283.        (3)  Same  page. 


543 

by^  or  assimilated  to  any  thing  on  earth.^''  Every  priestis  in  fact  a 
God.  Hence  he  controls  our  elections — raises  or  allays  a  mob  by  the 
waving  oT  his  hand  (among  his  own  people) — forgives  sins,  admits 
men  to  heaven,  lets  them  out  of  purgatory,  &/C.  &lc.\  What  awful, 
unearthly  power !  To  strike  such  a  man  is  death,  where  the  Catholic 
religion  is  established!  But  who  believing  this  would  dare  to 
strike  or  offend  him?  The  men  among  the  Catholics  who  are 
worst,  often  fear  ihe  priest  most,  on  the  principles  by  which  some 
of  the  Eastern  nations  worship  the  devil,  because  o(  his  power  ^nd 
willingness  to  do  them  harm.  Besides  all  this,  no  act  of  his  is 
valid  unless  he  intends  to  make  it  so.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of 
intention.  Hence  to  displease  him  is  ruin  to  his  poor  people. 
And  again,  07ice  a  priest  always  a  priest.  They  cannot  take 
away  his  office.  The  sacrament  of  orders  impresses  an  indelible 
character.  And  hence  they  teach  and  hold  that  however  wicked 
a  priest  may  be,  yet  he  is  to  be  venerated  as  a  priest  of  Christ! 
Thus  it  is  written:  (1)  "And  of  this  the  faithful  are  fre- 
quently TO  BE  REMINDED,  IN  ORDER  TO  BE  CONVINCED,  THAT 
WERE  EVEN  THE  LIVES  OF  HER  MINISTERS  DEBASED  BY  CRIME, 
THEY  ARE  STILL  WITHIN  HER  PALE,  AND  THEREFORE  LOSE  NO 
PART  OF  THE  POWER  WITH  WHICH  HER  MINISTRY  INVESTS  THEM." 

Here  is  a  shelter  for  every  knave  and  debauchee ;  and  here  is 
sustaining  the  power,  influence,  and  authority  of  the  priesthood, 
to  the  last  dregs  of  human,  papal,  priestly  crime. 

All  these  facts  Mr.  Hughes  has  once  tried  to  meet ;  but  failing, 
now  wisely  shuts  the  debate.     All  must  see  why  he  does  so. 

In  the  late  debate,  I  proved  at  large,  on  the  authority  of  the 
French  Parliament,  and  of  Catholic  writers,  that  the  order 
OF  the  Jesuits,  who  are  the  pope'' s  great  propagandists,  cannot, 
and  never  did  prevail  in  any  country,  without  destroying  its  liber- 
ties, and  its  morals.  Mr.  Hughes  shuns  enquiry  on  this  topic,  by 
withdrawing  from  the  discussion  before  it  is  reached  in  writing, 
having  been  defeated  on  it  in  the  oral  debate,  and  having  then 
rejected  the  stenographer's  report.  Mr.  Hughes  is  the  apologist, 
nay  the  eulogist  of  the  Jesuits.  The  secreta  monita,  which  Mr. 
Hughes  well  knows,  rest  on  good  proof,  are  not  otar  only,  or  our 
chief  proof,  as  those  who  heard  the  debate  will  testify. 

But  we  are  not  allowed  to  introduce  this  subject  here.  Mr. 
Hughes  refuses  to  allow  me  to  proceed — refuses  to  proceed  him- 
self He  will  withhold  what  he  has  written,  if  I  add  more  to  the 
present  amount  before  it  is  put  to  press. 

Nunneries.  We  proved  in  the  oral  debate,  that  they  had 
uniformly  been  prisons  to  the  inmates,  and  generally  brothels  for 
the  priests;  that  every  nation  almost  of  Europe  which  had  tried 
them,  had  been  sorely  injured  by  them  in  vital  respects,  espe- 
cially by  the  astonishing  immoralities  which  they  systematically 
propagated  among  females  and  priests. 

(1)  Catechism,  94,  95. 


544 

And  this  was  done  on  the  authority  of  Catholic  writers  of  differ- 
ent ages.  In  Spain  and  Portugal,  which  though  late,  are  at  last 
awaking  from  the  long  slumber  of  slaves  under  the  papal  yoke, 
these  nurseries  o\' popery  and  of  pollution  are  perishing  before 
the  wild  fury  of  an  injured  and  outraged  people.  If  the  dis- 
closures of  the  secrets  of  the  nunneries  in  our  continent  be  not 
true,  I  can  only  say  that  they  are  most  fait hf id  reports  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  same  institutions,  in  other  ages,  and  in  other  lands. 
Let  any  man  read  what  Erasmus,  what  De  Ricei,  what  the  Bishop 
of  Saltsburg,  and  the  Bishops  of  Bononia,  all  Catholic  writers^ 
say  of  these  institutions,  (which  Mr.  Hughes  defends,  and  is  con- 
tinually attempting  to  honour  and  multiply)  and  he  mast  arise 
from  their  perusal  deeply  convinced  that  their  friend  is  his  coim- 
try^s  enemy. 

But  Mr.  Hughes  declines  to  discuss  this  topic  also. 

And  THE  Inquisition.  Mr.  Hughes  its  apologist!  In  America! 
In  the  19th  century  !  It  is  enough  !  Yet  he  declines  discussing 
the  question  when  he  sees  it  coming,  and  retreats  shutting  the 
door  by  which  he  is  pursued. 

We  proved  the  fact  of  the  conspiracy  avnong  foreign  papists 
against  the  liberties  of  our  country ;  showing  at  the  same  time 
that  popery  is  a  political,  much  more  than  a  religious  institution. 
Mr.  Hughes  refuses  to  have  it  published,  or  at  least  he  declines 
to  meet  the  proof  from  the  press,  after  having  heard  it  in  the 
debate. 

The  immoralities  of  the  papal  system  show  it  to  be  the  ''''man 
of  sin.''"'  The  dreadful  tendency  of  the  doctrines  of  indidgences, 
priestly  absolution,  and  confession  in  secret  to  a  priest;  and  the 
impurities  even  of  their  very  books  of  devotion,  were  exhibited  at 
large  in  the  debate.  He  shunned  them  then,  he  flies  from  them 
now.  A  Spanish  book  used  in  confession  in  South  America,  and 
*'  The  Christian's  Guide  to  Heaven,^^  issued  under  the  sanction  of 
Bishop  Kendrick,  has  in  it  the  most  reprehensible  matter.  I  give 
a  specimen  from  the  questions  for  self-examination,  in  preparation 
for  confession  to  a  priest.  I  blush  to  record  it!  But  how  else 
shall  we  expose  it?  They  who  print  it,  circulate  it,  use  it,  have 
themselves  denounced  the  exposure  of  it?  On  page  82,  it  says, 
^^  consult  the  table  of  sins  to  help  your  memory.'"'  In  this  table, 
under  the  sixth  commandment,  is  the  following  paragraph.  "  Com- 
mitted adultery,  fornication  or  incest.  Procured  pollution  in  one's 
self  or  others.  Wanton  words,  looks,  or  gestures.  Lascivious 
dressing,  colours,  or  painting.  Lewd  company.  Lascivious  balls, 
or  revellings.  Dishonest  looks.  Unchaste  songs.  Kissing,  or  un- 
chaste discourses.  Took  carnal  pleasure  by  touching  myself,  or 
others  of  either  sex.  Showed  your  skin  or  some  naked  part  of 
your  body  to  entice  others.  Eat  hot  meats,  or  drank  hot  wine  to 
procure  or  excite  lusts." 

Is  not  this  the  vocabidary  of  a  brothel?  What  but  a  Roman 
Catholic  Priest,  ''could  have  had  the  pollution  to  conceive  it,  or  the 


545 

Siiidacity  to  give  it  in  a  book  of  devotions  ;  to  prepare  a  female  to 
meet  him  at  confession?  When  I  first  read  this  infamous  passage 
2t  struck  me  as  possible  that  it  may  have  been  given  for  private 
use.  It  were  horrible  even  then.  But  not  so.  The  same  book  in 
the  same  connexion  adds,  "  If  you  have  any  thing  upon  your  con- 
science which  you  have  di.  particular  difficulty  in  confessing ,  cease 
not  with  prayers  and  tears  to  importune  your  Heavenly  Father  to 
assist  you  in  this  regard,  till  he  gives  you  the  grace  to  overcome 
that  difficulty.  Let  it  (your  confession)  be  entire  as  to  the  kind 
und  number  of  your  sins;  and  such  circumstances  as  quite  change 
the  nature  of  your  sins,  or  notoriously  aggravate  it."  This  drags 
the  ichole  heart,  and  all  the  details  to  light.  The  fifth  chapter  also 
of  the  Council  of  Trent,  On  Confession,  commands  the  most  secret 
kind  of  mortal  sins  to  be  confessed,  as  indispensable  to  their 
forgiveness. 

Now  can  such  a  system  fail  to  ruin  any  heart,  or  church,  or 
country  in  which  it  prevails,  and  then  too  as  a  part  of  religion? 
If  this  be  religion,  what  must  the  rest  he  1  I  beg  pardon  of  my 
country  for  the  record  of  this  loathsome  matter.  But  I  felt  that  I 
should  have  to  ask  a  still  deeper  pardon  for  suppressing  it. 

Finally,  I  reviewed  the  canon  law,  which  is  binding  upon  all 
Catholics,  which  is  a  depository  of  the  papal  system,  as  an  active, 
organized  mass ;  and  from  it,  at  large,  I  proved  the  tyranny  of 
Rome;  her  enmity  to  liberty;  her  persecuting  spirit;  and  her 
total  and  ruthless  bigotry  and  intolerance. 

It  was  and  is  in  vain  to  call  Mr.  Hughes  to  its  defence. 

Now  from  all  these  sources  of  proof,  we  showed  the  enmity 
of  the  system  of  popery  to  civil  and  especially  religious  liberty^ 

These  several  heads  have  been  excluded  from  this  volume  of 
the  Discussion  by  Mr.  Hughes's  determination  not  to  admit  them, 
though  every  member  of  the  society  knows  that  they  were  in  suc- 
cession produced,  and  dwelt  on  in  the  orcd  debate.  This  recapi- 
tulation of  them  is  designed  to  show  to  the  public  how  large  the 
sources  of  proof  are  ;  how  limited  the  discussion  about  to  be  put 
to  press  is;  how  inadequate  a  view  it  gives  of  the  subject  as  tra- 
versed on  the  rostrum;  who  abridged  it  thus ;  and  tvhy  he  has 
done  it. 

And  now  at  the  close  of  these  remarks,  it  becomes  my  duty  to 
make  the  following  suggestions. 

1.  That  I  always  distinguish  between  the  priesthood  and  the 
laity  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  priesthood  make  the  hierarchy 
and  are  the  seat  of  power,  oppression,  darkness,  and  pollution.  I 
respect  unfeignedly  many  of  the  laity,  whom  I  esteem  it  my 
happiness  to  know.  The  intelligent  members  of  that  communion 
in  the  United  States  have  been  and  are  fast  verging  to  protestantism. 
They  are  strictly  speaking  only  semi-papal ;  and  one  happy 
effect  of  these  discussions,  as  I  have  good  reason  to  know,  has  al- 
ready been  to  open  many  eyes  to  the  true  character  of  popery.  For 

69 


546 

example,  when  Mr.  Hughes  (as  in  the  late  discussion),  backed 
by  Bishop  Kenrick,  took  off,  by  a  public  disclaimer,  the  papal 
prohibition  (rccordedin  the  rules  of  the  index)  to  read  controversies 
with  heretics,  thousands  of  Catholics  availed  themselves  of  that 
permission  to  read  the  Discussion.  And  so  as  to  the  reading  of 
the  Bible.  In  this  way,  therefore,  Mr.  Hughes's  denial  of  the 
doctrines  and  discipline  of  his  church,  is  (though  reversely)  pro- 
ducing the  best  effects  for  the  truth,  though  on  his  part,  in  a  most 
unenviable  way.  For  as  he  is  ashamed  of  many  features  of  his 
system,  and  denies  them,  it  is  death  to  it  by  suicide;  instead  of 
destruction  in  the  field  of  manly  argument.  The  result  will  be  the 
same. 

2.  It  is  an  American  and  a  Bible  principle  to  examine  every 
thing.  If  there  be  any  thing  in  Presbytcrianism  that  shall  prove 
wrong  in  itself  or  opposed  to  liberty  we  desire  to  know  it — and  to 
renounce  it.  We  profess  not  to  be  unchangeable,  or  infallible. 
We  invite  enquiry.  But  I  think  it  will  appear  very  plain  that  Mr. 
Hughes  has  found  little  in  us  against  liberty.  Hence  he  ran  to 
Europe.  There  \ye  did  not  largely  follow  him  ;  for  it  was  aside 
from  the  question.  We  agreed  with  him  that  our  fathers  were 
in  some  things  ivrong,  and  in  others  intolerant.  Most  of  his  state- 
ments were  false,  as  we  have  occasionally  proved;  and  may  more 
fully  do  hereafter.  But  we  were  determined  to  press  the  real 
question,  and  leave  his  scandal  to  refute  itself 

3.  Catholic  priests  in  America  are  so  ill-bred,  that  it  seems  im- 
possible to  debate  with  them  as  gentlemen.  Nothing  but  the  great 
interests  at  stake  would  ever  have  induced  me  to  debate  with  Mr. 
Hughes  after  I  discovered  how  reckless  and  unamiable  a  man  he 
was.  Yet  I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  thus  publicly  to  say  that  I  deep- 
ly regret  my  having  occasionally  expressed  myself  with  improper 
severity  towards  him.  1  expect  to  meet  him  before  a  higher  bar 
than  that  of  the  American  people,  which  is  surely  the  first  of 
earthly  tribunals.  It  is  with  some  humble  consciousness  of  the 
integrity  of  my  purpose,  and  a  deep  impression  of  the  value  and 
glory  of  the  truth,  that  I  review  my  intercourse  with  Mr.  Hughes. 

4.  It  is  my  purpose,  if  Heaven  permit,  to  pursue  this  question  to 
its  legitimate  close;  and  at  my  leisure,  exhibit  those  features  of 
the  discussion  which  have  been  suppressed  by  Mr.  Hughes. 

Finally,  I  dedicate  my  imperfect  attempts  to  defend  the  great 
cause  of  American  liberty  to  the  youth  of  our  beloved  country, 
whose  breasts,  as  has  been  no  less  truly  than  beautifully  said  by 
one  of  our  greatest  statesmen — are  the  shrine  of  freedom.  To 
them,  under  God,  our  liberties  are  committed. 

May  it  be  an  imperishable  deposit. 


THE  END. 


ERRATA. 

On  page  36,  14  lines  from  the  bottom,  for  ^^Upon,'^  read  ''For.'* 

Page  64,  2(1  line,  for  "  still  divine"  read  "  still  diviner.'' 

Page  67,  4th  line  from  bottom,  for  "  circumvallations  of  mind,''  read  "  cir- 

cumvallations  of  7mid." 

Page  93,  for  "  cruriarwn," -xgim\  "  crimi7ium,"  (near  the  bottom  of  the  page.) 

Page  95,  first  word,  for  "  committanda,"  read  "  committenda." 

Page  97,  middle  of  page,  join  "  doctrine"  to  "  making;"  with  a  hyphen. 

Page  98,  for  ''four  Luteran"  read  ''fourth"  &c. 

Page  98,  note,  for  "  Vol.  XL."  read  "  VI." 

Page  101,  put  the  last  paragraph  as  a  quotation. 

Page  102,  note,  for  "  bass,"  read  "  boss." 

Page  106,  for  "martyrs,"  read  "martyr." 

Page  228,  7th  line  from  top,  for  "  But  his  declaration,"  read  "  By  his,"  &c. 

Page  233,  near  bottom,  for  "gentleman"  read  "gentlemen." 

Page  300,  middle  of  page,  after  "  disturbance"  put  marks  of  quotation. 

Page  306,  4th  line  from  top,  for  "decree"  xesid  " Bean,"     14th  line,  for 

"  Vienna,"  i*ead  "  Vienne." 

Page  330,  (middle)  for  "fideleo,"  read  "f  deles." 

Page  339,  near  bottom,  for  "Menotheist,"  read  "  Monotheist." 


We,  the  undersigned,  Committee  on  Publication,  after  hav- 
ing carefully  examined  this  work,  do  certify  that  it  is  a  true 
copy  of  the  manuscript  of  the  Discussion  as  placed  in  our 
hands  by  the  Rev.  gentlemen  for  publication. 

THOMAS  BROWN,  M.  D. 

WILLIAM  DICKSON. 


NEW      WORK 


CAREY,     LEA,    AND     BLANCHARD 


HATE    LATELY    PUBLISHED 


ENGLAND  IN   1835: 

BEING  A  SERIES  OP 

LETTERS    WRITTEN   TO   FRIENDS   IN 
GERMANY, 

DURING  A 

RESIDENCE  IN  LONDON  AND  EXCURSIONS  INTO  THE  PROVINCES : 

BY 

FREDERICK  VON  RAUMER, 

PROFESSOn    OP    HISTORY    AT    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    BERLIN,  AUTHOR    OF    THE    'HIS- 
TORY OF  THE  HOHENSTAUFEN;'    of  the    'HISTORY  OF  EUROPE    FROM    THE 
END    OF    THE    FIFTEENTH    CENTURY;'    OF    'ILLUSTRATIONS    OF 
THE    HISTORY    OF    THE    SIXTEENTH    AND    SEVEN- 
TEENTH   CENTURIES,'    ETC.    ETC. 

TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN, 

By  SARAH  AUSTIN  and  H.  E.  LLOYD. 

WITH    AN    AMERICAN    PREFACE    BY    MRS.    AUSTIN. 
IN  ONE  VOL.  OCTAVO. 


NOTICES. 


"  M.  Von  Raumcr  arrived  on  llie  22(1  of  March,  and  remained  till 
the  end  of  September,  during-  which  time,  he  visited  the  principal 
manufacturing  towns  in  England,  and  Edinburgh,  Glasgow  and  Dub- 
lin. Though  furnished  with  the  highest  introductions  to  the  most 
eminent  persons  of  all  parties,  he  seldom  mentions  names,  but  merely 
gives  the  initial,  except  in  the  cases  of  some  distinguished  public  charac- 
ters— to  which  he  was  probably  induced  by  the  offence  that  was  given 
by  the  Letters  of  Prince  Puckler  Muskau,  and  the  disclosures  of  private 
affairs  by  him  and  other  travellers." — Sthencuin. 

"  A  fortnight  ago,  we  translated  from  Von  Raumer's  second  volume, 
and  inserted  in  the  Literary  Gazette,  that  able  foreigner's  remarks  on 
what  we  considered  the  most  iraportrnt  topic  in  his  work,  viz.  that  of 
national  education:  but  he  touches  on  many  other  subjects  respecting" 
which  it  is  desirable  to  hear  the  opinions  of  such  a  man,  and  we  think 
it  expedient  to  select  a  few  of  them  for  the  edification  of  the  English 
public.  We  may  preface  them  by  stating,  that  M.  Von  Raumer, 
being  engaged  in  the  history  of  the  last  three  centuries,  resolved  to 
visit  England,  both  to  examine  the  literary  treasures  of  the  British 
Museum,  and  other  public  repositories,  and  to  make  himself  acquainted 
with  the  character  of  the  people  and  the  genius  of  our  institutions, 
furnished  with  powerful  recommendations,  he  had  no  difficulty  in 
gaining  admittance  to  persons  of  the  highest  rank  of  all  parties; 
and  we  find  him  equally  well  received  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, Sir  Robert  Peel,  Mr.  O'Connell,  Mr.  Spring  Rice,  the  Duke  of 
Sussex,  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne,  &c.  In  general  he  mentions  no 
names  except  of  eminent  public  characters,  but  merely  gives  the 
initials:  he,  however,  particularly  mentions  the  great  kindness  with 
which  Mr.  Spring  Rice  betowed  his  valuable  time  in  giving  him  the 
most  important  information. 

"  The  sixty-six  Letters  here  printed  were  written  during  the  author's 
six  months'  stay,  from  22d  March  to  the  middle  of  September:  during 
which  time  he  also  visited  Edinburgh  and  Dublin." — Lit.  Gazette, 


CONTENTS. 


Preface  to  the  American  Edition. 
Translator's  Preface. 
Memoir  of  the  Author. 
Author's  Preface. 

LETTER  I. 
Departure   from   Berlin — Magdeburg   Cathedral — Progress    of   popular 
singing — Dusseldorf — School  of  painting — Steam-experiment  on   the 
Rhine. 

LETTER  IL 
Steam-boats    and   Postwagen — ^Travelling   Companions — Nymwegen — 
Rotterdam — Voyage  to  London — Aspect  of  the   Thames — Historical 
recollections — Characteristic  buildings — Grandeur  of  London, 
LETTER  m. 
Aspect  of  London — Vastness  and  Quantity — Progress  of  Society — Paris 
and  London  contrasted — Self-reflection — Berlin  politicians. 
LETTER  IV. 

Party  at  the  Duke  of  D 's  —  General  impressions  —  Beauty  of  the 

Women — English  compared  with  Roman  Women — Absence  of  orders 
and  decorations — English  language — Specimen  of  German  spelling  by 
English  officials. 

LETTER  V. 
Breakfast — Catholics  in  Prussia  and  in  Ireland — Political  crisis — State 
of  the  present  Ministry,  and  dismissal  of  the  last — Sir  Robert  Peel — 
Whigs   and  Tories — A  Landscape  Painter — Beauty  an  aristocratical 
privilege  in  England. 

LETTER  VI. 
Whig  Ministry — Causes  of  its  formation  and  dismissal — Manner  of  dis- 
missal— Its  effects — Points  at  issue  between  Tories  and  Whigs — Lord 
Prussian  Church  policy — Irish  Catholics,  genuine  Conserva- 
tives— O'Connell — Causes  of  his  power — Tithes  in  Ireland — Attempts 
at  reform — Private  and  public  property — Mr.  Stanley's  motion — Lon- 
don and  Paris  news. 

LETTER  VII. 
Mr.  Babbage's  Calculating  Machine — Philosophy  and   Mathematics — 
Dinner  party,  its   length   and   luxury — Climate — Museum — Rhubarb 
tart — Vastness  of  London — Its  metropolitan  and  commercial  character 
— Comparison  with  other  capitals — Squares — Parks — Regent's  Park. 
LETTER  VIII. 
Irish  Church — Lord  Althorp's  motion — Debates  upon  it — Grievances  of 
the  Catholics — Kildare  Street  Society — Mr.  Stanley's  motion — Oppo- 
sition  to  it — Its  success — Duties  of  a  Statesman — Tory  doctrines — 
■  Church  property — Violence  of  parties — Necessity  of  concession — Irish 
Union — Improvement  in  Irish  commerce — Irish  poverty — Middlemeii 
— Poor  Laws  for  Ireland — State  and  prospects  of  Ireland. 
LETTER  IX. 
London  Shops — Hackney  Carriages,  Omnibuses — Clubs — Wealth  and 
Magnificence   of  the    Church   of  England — London  and  Southwark 
Bridges — Thames — English  value  for  Time — Politiczd  Spirit  of  Prus- 
sia— Dinner  at  Lord  M 's. 

LETTER  X. 
State  and  Prospects  of  the  Ministry — Cost  of  Elections — Sentiment  of  an 
English  Minister — Letter  of  Lord  Holdernesse,  on  the  Ministry  of 
1757 — Resignation  of  the  Ministry — Sir  Robert  Peel — Religious  To- 
lerance— Power  of  Words — Idolatry  of  Forms. 


CONTENTS. 

LETTER  XI. 

Philharmonic  Concert — Comparison  of  London  and  Paris  Music — Mr. 
Hallam — Sir  F.  Palgrave— Mr.  Cooper. 

LETTER  Xn. 

Sir  Robert  Peel — House  of  Lords — Situation  of  the  Catholic  Clergy 

English  and  German  Protestantism — Historical  Sketch  of  the  Church 
of  England — Motions  and  Debates  on  Church  Reform — Church  Reve- 
nues— Dissenters — English  Tithes — Tithe  Reforms — Voluntary  Sys- 
tem— Necessity  for  Reform. 

LETTER  Xin. 

Newspapers — The   Times — The    Standard— Athenaeum    Club  House 

Dinner  at  H House — Squares — Domestic  Architecture  and  Fur- 
niture— -Hyde  Park  and  Kensington  Gardens — Dinner  with  Turkish 
Ambassador — Specimen  of  General  Seydlitz's  French — Museum — 
Chapter  house,  Westminster — Sir  F.  Palgrave — Doomsday  Book — 
Germanic  Institutions  of  England — Rich  materials  for  History  pos- 
sessed by  England — Regent's  Park — Zoological  Gardens. 
LETTER  XIV. 

New  Ministry — False  maxims  concerning  the  English  Constitution 

Relations  of  Lords  and  Commons — Tories  and  Radicals — Party  incon- 
sistencies— Hereditary  Peerage — Peers  for  Life — Example  of  Rome — 

Ecclesiastical  Aristocracy — Decline  of  Aristocracy — Duke  of  S 

Domestic  Finance — Eating-house — Dinner  of  Artisans — Drury  Lane 
Theatre;  Oratorio — Performance  of  the  Messiah  at  Berlin  and  London 
compared — Modern  Italian  Singing  and  Music — Dinner — Comparative 
Prices  of  London,  Paris,  and  Berlin — Tea  Trade  with  China. 
LETTER  XV. 
Different  ways  of  regarding  Poverty — Experiments  of  ancient  Legisla- 
tors to  equalize  Wealth—Moses,  Lycurgus,  Solon,  Servius  Tullius — 
Influence  of  Christianity — Historical  Sketch  of  English  Poor-laws — 
Law  of   Settlement — Increase   of    Poor's-rate — Scotland — Increased 
consumption  of  England— Diet  of  Poor-houses — Remedies  proposed — 
Mr.  Sadler — Report  of  the  Poor-law  Commission — Allowance  System 
— Moral  effects — Functionaries — Overseers — Law  of  Bastardy — Plans 
for  Reform — Poor-law   Commissioners — Objections  to  the   Poor-law 
Bill — Prevalent  errors  about  England — Right  of  the  Poor  to  relief. 
LETTER  XVI. 
Party  Prejudices  of  England — Peers  for  Life — Aristocracies  of  France 
and  England — Lawyer  Peers — Eligibility  of  Peers  to  sit  in  the  House 
of  Commons — Ex  officio  Seats  in  the  House  of  Commons — Difficulties 
attending  the  formation  of  a  Ministry — Balance  of  Parties — Negro 
Slavery — Objections  to  Emancipation — Notions  on  private  Property — 
New  Ministry — Causes  of  Changes  in  England — Tory  Blunders — 
"  Measures  not  Men" — Freedom  of  the  Press — English  Newspapers — 
Speeches  of  Sir  R.  Peel  and  Lord  John  Russell — Lord  Melbourne  and 
O'Connell — Corrupt  practices  at  Elections. 
LETTER  XVII. 
Climate  of  England — Houses — Fires — Museum — St.  Paul's  Cathedral — 
St.  Peter's — English  Drama — English  Law. 
LETTER  XVni. 
Exchange — Bank — Lloyd's  Coffee-house — Naples  and  London — Com- 
mercial Spirit— West  India  Docks— Absence  of  Soldiers — Standing 
Armies. 

LETTER  XIX. 

Radical  opinions  and  Tory  saws — Concession — English  Church — In- 
comes of  Bishops — Voluntary  System — Education  Expenses — Steam 
Printing-press — Intellectual  power — Westminster  Abbey — English 
Manners — Education  of  Women — Covent  Garden— Macbeth — Rich- 
mond—English Architecture— Fashion  and  Flattery. 


CONTENTS. 

LETTER  XX. 

Museum — Philharmonic   Concert — Police-office — Summary  Proceeding 
— Morning   Concert — Concert-room — Eng-lish,  French,   and    German 
women — Royal  Military  Asylum — Chelsea  Hospital — Hyde  Park. 
LETTER  XXL 

French  Communicativeness — English  Reserve — Prussian '  Staatszeitung' 
— '  Wochenblatt' — Exhortations  to  Peel — '  Thorough' — Insignificance 
of  the  Theatre — Political  Press  in  Berlin  and  London — Whigs  and 
Tories — Primogeniture — Husband-catching — Religious  Bigotry — New 
Interpretation  of  the  Apocalypse — Hansard's  Debates — English  So- 
ciety— German  Joviality. 

LETTER  XXII. 

English  and  French  Society — Scene  in  an  Omnibus — House  of  Commons 
— English  Oratory — Poor  Laws  for  Ireland — O'Connell — Public  and 
Private  Law — Repeal — Lord  John  Russell — Devonsire  Election — Sir 
R.  Peel's  City  Speech — Fifty-fourth  Birth-day — '  King  and  Constitu- 
tion'— King  of  Prussia,. the  First  Reformer  of  Europe — ^Fogs — English 
Orthography  of  German. 

LETTER  XXIII. 

Reform  in  Parliament — Historical  Sketch  of  English  Parliament — Spi- 
ritual Peers — Creation  of  Peers — Changes  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
from  Edward  I.  to  George  III. — Projects  of  Reform — Mr.  Pitt — Duke 
of  Wellington's  resistance — Its  consequences — Lord  John  Russell's 
Bill — Remarks  on  the  Debates — Rejection  by  the  Lords — Resignation 
and  Return  of  Whig  Ministers — Final  Passage  of  the  Bill. 

LETTER  XXIV. 

Remarks  on  the  Reform  Bill — English  attachment  to  Forms — England 
and  France  Constitutional  States  :  meaning  of  those  words — National 
Bigotries — History,  Principles  with  their  Consequences — Sir  Robert 
Peel — Exclusive  Regard  to  Quantity,  and  neglect  of  Quality,  in  mo- 
dern Political  Schemes — Edinburgh  Review — Reports  of  Commission- 
ers— Royal  Authority— Centralization — Relation  of  number  of  Electors 
to  Population— Annual  Parliaments — Ballot — Prospects  of  England. 

LETTER  XXV. 

English  Civility — Hyde  Park — Equipages — Westminster  Sessions — 
English  Procedure — Practical  Eloquence — Prison — Tread-mill — Poli- 
tical Creed  of  a  Radical — Specimen  of  an  English  Family  of  the  Middle 
Classes. 

LETTER  XXVL 

Visit  to  Haileybury — English  Sundays — Want  of  intellectual  Recrea- 
tion—Want of  popular  musical  Education — Beer  Bill — Beer  Shops — 
Gin  Shops — Causes  of  Drunkenness — Prostitution — Illegitimate  Chil- 
dren— Population — Increased  Value  of  Life. 

LETTER  XXVIL 

Municipal  Reform  Bill— Political  Constitution  of  Villages—  Report  of 
Corporation  Commission — Municipal  Charters — Protest  of  Sir  F.  Pal- 
grave — London  Review — Radical  scheme  of  Municipal  Reform — Its 
resemblance  to  Municipal  System  of  Prussia — Centralization — Royal 
Authority. 

LETTER  XXVIII. 

Party  at  Lord 's— Pictures— English  Society— Vacuity  of 'Routs'— 

Ballot— Sir  Robert  Peel— Dissenters— Duke  of  Wellington  and  Oxford 
— Shades  of  Toryism — English  and  German  Universities — Lord 
Brougham — Foreign  popular  Education — Study  of  History  in  England 
—Duke  of  S.— King's  Birth-day  Processions— Mail  Coaches— Party  at 

Lord  L 's — Statues — Dresses — Aristocratical  Blood  and  Beauty — 

London  'Squeezes' — Dinners — Judges  in  Westminster  Hall — Tieck — 
Stepney  Papers — Mr.  Faraday — Royal  Institution. 


CONTENTS. 

LETTER  XXIX. 

Codification — Ignorance  of  Roman  Law  in  England — Notion  of  the  abso- 
lute perfection  of  English  Law  exploded — Lord  Brougham's  Speech— » 
Anomalies — Rejection  of  Bills  by  the  Lords — Law  of  Inheritance — 
Centralization  of  Justice — Quarterly  and  Edinburgh  Reviews — Practi- 
cal Men — Local  Courts'  Bill — Debate — Prussian  Law — Influence  and 
Interests  of  Lawyers — House  of  Lords — Vocation  of  an  Aristocracy — 
Registration. 

LETTER  XXX. 

Effect  of  the  French  Revolution  of  July  in  England — Ignorance  of  Con- 
tinental Politicians — Prussian  Government  and  People — English  in- 
dependent of  French  civilization — Law  and  Practice  of  Inheritance — - 
Their  effects — French  and  English  Tumults — Their  Differences. 

LETTER  XXXI. 

German  Commercial  League — Prussia,  Austria,  Hamburg — Exhibition, 
British  Gallery — C event  Garden — Queen's  box — Characteristic  of 
Philistines — Journey  to  Windsor — Miseries,  aquatic  and  acoustic — 
Presentation  to  the  Queen — Windsor  Castle — Its  Grandeur  and  Histo- 
rical Interest — Shakspeare-— Return  to  town — B House — Rout — 

English  Musical  Composers. 

LETTER  XXXIL 

Sir  R P Mr.  O'Connell — German  Demagogues — Haymarket 

Theatre;  Royal  Box — Much  ado  about  Nothing — Concert — Musical 
Criticism — Zoological  Gardens — Society  of  Arts— English  Parties — 
Chantrey — Sculpture — State-Paper  Office — Hanover-Square  Concert 
Messiah. 

LETTER  XXXm. 

Uniforms — Orders — Police — Want  of  Popular  Amusements — Civiliza- 
tion by  means  of  Art — Modern  French  Drama — English  Parties — 
Society — Spirit  of  Association — Clubs. 

LETTER  XXXIV. 

War  of  Opinions  in  England — Contradictory  Affirmations  on  Agriculture 
— Prussian  Peasantry. 

LETTER  XXXV. 

Agriculture. 

LETTER  XXXVI. 

Manufactures — Comparison  of  ancient  Times  with  modern — Relations  of 
Master,  Journeyman,  and  Apprentice,  in  the  Middle  Ages — Guilds — 
Causes  of  their  Decline — Advantages  of  the  old  System — Law  of  Mas- 
ter and  Apprentice — Factory  Children — Factory  Bill — Condition  of 
Workmen — Machinery — Comparative  Production  of  England — Steam 
and  Human  Labour. 

LETTER  XXXVn. 

Systems  of  Trade — ^Truck  System — W^ages — Iron — Coals — Silk — Wool 
— Cotton — State  of  Manufactures  and  Manufacturers  in  England. 

LETTER  XXXVIII. 

State  of  Commerce  and  Manufactures  in  England — Glove-trade — De- 
cline of  Monopolies — Navigation  Laws — Prussian  Commerce — Com- 
mercial League — English  Shipping — Balance  of  Trade — Old  and  New 
Doctrine  of  Exports  and  Imports — Security  of  Commerce — Capital — 
Increase  in  the  Commercial  Prosperity,  Production,  and  Consumption 
of  Great  Britain. 

***  Letters  XXXIX.  to  LXVI.  are  rejjlete  with  similar  interesting 
local  matter. 


